S v Coetzer (619/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 125 (1 December 2009)

50 Reportability
Criminal Procedure

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Special review — Accused arrested for theft and released upon payment of admission of guilt fine — Parents misled into believing payment was for bail — Accused's mother filed affidavit detailing circumstances — Court finds payment made under misapprehension — Conviction and sentence set aside due to failure of justice — Matter referred back for trial.

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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAFSHC 125
|

|

S v Coetzer (619/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 125 (1 December 2009)

FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 619/2009
In
the
special review between:
THE
STATE
and
JOHANNES JACOBUS
COETZER
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
CILLIé
et
MOLEMELA,
JJ
_______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
MOLEMELA,
J
_______________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
..........
DECEMBER 2009
_______________________________________________________
[1] This is a special
review referred to this court in terms of
section 304(4)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
.
[2] The
accused person, an 18 year old youth, was arrested at a supermarket
for allegedly stealing goods to the value of R73,04.
He was taken to
police cells and locked up in a cell. His parents later arrived at
the cells where they were informed that their
son would be released
upon payment of an amount of R200,00. Believing that the payment was
in respect of bail, the parents paid
the aforesaid amount and the
accused was then released. The accused’s mother subsequently filed
an affidavit setting out the
circumstances of the arrest and
subsequent release of the accused, as mentioned above.
[3] On
the strength of the contents of the aforesaid affidavit, I find that
the accused person paid the admission of guilt fine
under a
misapprehension. See
DIE
STAAT V RUITER EN ANDERE
1962 (1) SA 161
(O);
S
V MOTHAE
(2)
1965 (2) SA 128
(O). To allow a conviction based on a
misapprehension to stand, would be a serious miscarriage of justice.
It is trite law that
where there has been a failure of justice the
reviewing court is entitled to set aside both the conviction and
sentence.
I accordingly grant the
following:
(1) The conviction and
sentence are set aside.
(2) The matter is
referred back to the magistrate’s court for trial.
_________________
M.B. MOLEMELA, J
I
agree.
____________
C.B. CILLIé, J
MBM
/sp