About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 162
|
|
S v Langa (A800/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 162; 2010 (1) SACR 47 (GNP) (10 September 2009)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH, PRETORIA)
Case
no. 257/08
Date:
10/09/2009
In
the review matter:
STATE
VERSUS PIET LANGA
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
LEGODI
J,
The
accused initially appeared in the Magistrate court, Hoedspriut on a
charge of unlawful possession of goods in contravention
of section 36
Act of 62 of 1955.
The
accused was found guilty as charged and sentenced to two years
imprisonment. The accused's previous convictions seem to have
played
a role in the sentence imposed. The accused was also declared unfit
to possess a firearm after the trial court had held
a short enquiry
in this regard.
However,
the trial court in addition to the two years imprisonment, made an
order that the accused should attend programmes whilst
in prison in
not committing crimes of theft, possession of suspected stolen
property and failure to give satisfactory account thereto
or
receiving property knowing that it had been stolen or be found in
possession of suspected stolen property for a period of 12
months.
I
then raised a query with the magistrate as follows:
"Is
the order to attend programmes not an impediment on correctional
services Department, especially with the 12 months period
forming
part of the order?
In
terms of which provisions can such an order be made".
One
can understand the trial court's frustration in the previous
convictions of the accused. The accused committed previously and
found guilty of similar offences. At one stage, for example, the
accused was sentenced to four years imprisonment for house breaking.
It
looks like the trial court was frustrated that, the previous jail
sentences did not yield anything in the behaviour of the accused.
This might be so, however still the trial court cannot dictate what
the commissioner should do. The least, what the trail court
could
have done was to insist on having a probation officer's report, just
to have better understanding of the accused for example,
why the
accused continues committing similar offences and what programs he
had previously attended, if any?
The
order relating to the attendance of programs ought to be set aside.
Consequently,
I would make an order as follows:
Conviction
and sentence confirmed.
Declaration
of unfitness to possess a firearm is confirmed.
The
order that the accused should attend programs whilst in prison is
hereby set aside.
MF
LEGODI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I
AGREE
T
J RAUJLINGA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT