Law Reports
S v Ntlathi (189/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 53 (26 …

S v Ntlathi (189/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 53 (26 May 2010)

45 Reportability

Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Review — Declaration of unfitness to possess a firearm — Accused convicted of possession of dagga — Presiding officer's order declaring accused unfit to possess a firearm found to be impermissible under section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000 — Order set aside. The accused, Thami Ntlathi, was convicted in the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court for possession of 760 grams of dagga and sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, with a portion suspended. The presiding officer declared the accused unfit to possess a firearm, prompting a review. The legal issue was whether the order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm was permissible given the nature of the conviction. The court held that the declaration was not permissible and set aside the order, instructing that the accused be informed of the alteration to the sentence.

Full Judgment Text (Click to expand)

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
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAFSHC 53
|

S v Ntlathi (189/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 53 (26 May 2010)

FREE
STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review
No. 189/2010
In
the review between:
THE
STATE
versus
THAMI
NTLATHI
CORAM:
BOONZAAIER,
AJ
et
WRIGHT, J
JUDGMENT
BY:
BOONZAAIER,
AJ
________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
26
MAY 2010
[1] This matter came
before me on automatic review in terms of section 302 read with
section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
51 of 1977, (“the
CPA”). The accused were charged in the Bloemfontein
Magistrate’s Court on 23 April 2010 with
dealing in an
undesirable dependence producing substance to wit dagga. (The
alternative charge being possession or use of dagga.)
[2] The State withdrew
the main charge against the three accused persons, but proceeded with
the charge of the contravention of
section 4 (b) read with sections,
13(d), 17(d), 18,19, 20 and 64 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking
Act, 140 of 1992, (“the
Drug Trafficking Act “), for
being in possession of or the use of 760 grams of dagga.
[3] Accused number 1,
(the only accused in this review) pleaded guilty and accused persons
number 2 and 3 pleaded not guilty.
Accused number 1 was
then convicted as charged and sentenced to R4 000,00 (four thousand
rand) or 12 (twelve) months imprisonment
of which R2 000,00 (two
thousand rand) or 6 (six) months imprisonment is suspended for a
period of 5 (five) years on condition
that the accused is not again
convicted of contravening section 4 (b) Act 140 of 1992 committed
during the period of suspension.
The dagga was forfeited to the
State. Accused was declared unfit to possess a firearm.
[4] A query was directed
to the presiding officer as I was of the view that the order that the
accused is unfit to possess a firearm
was not in order. Section
103(1) (k) of Act 60 of 2000 does not permit of that.
[5] The presiding officer
supplied me with his comments and conceded that as the accused was
convicted of the possession of dagga
only an order declaring him
unfit to possess a firearm was not permissible.
[6]
ORDER:
1. The order that the
accused is unfit to possess a firearm is set aside
2. The accused is to be
informed about the alteration of the sentence.
____________________
A. S. BOONZAAIER, AJ
I concur.
____________________
G. F. WRIGHT, J
/em

Back to Law Reports