S v Kanetsi and Another (408/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 204 (1 December 2011)

35 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Duplication of charges — Accused pleaded guilty to two charges under the Precious Metals Act — Magistrate discovered duplication of charges during mitigation, finding that both charges arose from the same incident — Conviction on both counts set aside, with the court confirming only one valid charge of contravention — Matter referred back to the magistrate for appropriate action.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAFSHC 204
|

|

S v Kanetsi and Another (408/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 204 (1 December 2011)

FREE
STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review
No.: 408/2011
In
the special review case between:
THE
STATE
and
KABELO
PAULOS KANETSI
DAVID
SITHOLE
______________________________________________
CORAM:
JORDAAN,
J
et
ZIETSMAN, AJ
______________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
ZIETSMAN, AJ
______________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
1 DECEMBER 2011
[1] The accused pleaded
guilty and was found guilty on 2 charges of contravention of section
4(3) read with section 1, 4, 20(1)(a),
20(3) and 21 of the Precious
Metals Act, Act no 37 of 2005 as amended.
[2] Thereafter and during
address by the attorney for the accused for mitigating circumstances
and before sentence, the magistrate
found out that there was a
splitting of charges and that the accused should have been only found
guilty on 1 charge of contravention
of section 4(c) of the Precious
Metals Act, Act no 37 of 2005 as amended.
[3] The magistrate
remarks as follows:

When these two
charges were put to the accused to plead I was under the impression
that accused was found with the said gold bearing
metal on the very
same day but different places and at different times. Then it during
the address by the attorney that accused
was found at the very same
time and date in possession of two plastic bags containing gold
bearing material. I then immediately
stopped the proceedings and
realised that there is a duplication of charges after applying the
“evidence test”.”
[4] It is obviously, so
that there was a duplication of charges and that the accused is only
guilty of one charge of contravention
of section 4(c) as refer to
above.
[5] In the light of the
aforegoing, the conviction on both the counts is set aside and the
matter is referred back to the magistrate
of Welkom to deal with the
matter accordingly.
_________________
P. ZIETSMAN, AJ
I concur.
__________________
A. F. JORDAAN, J
/eb