• Law Reports
  • S v Tsipane and Another (476/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC …

S v Tsipane and Another (476/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 91 (6 September 2007)

45 Reportability
Criminal Procedure
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Criminal Procedure — Plea of guilty — Accused pleading guilty to theft but not to housebreaking with intent to steal — Magistrate failing to inquire if accused consented to conviction on lesser charge — Conviction and sentence set aside — Matter referred back for compliance with procedural requirements. The accused were charged with housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, to which they both pleaded guilty. The magistrate accepted the guilty plea for theft but not for housebreaking. Upon review, it was noted that the magistrate did not ask the accused if they consented to a conviction for the lesser charge of theft. The legal issue was whether the magistrate's failure to conduct the necessary inquiry invalidated the guilty plea and subsequent conviction. The court held that the guilty findings and sentences were set aside, and the matter was referred back to the magistrate to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding guilty pleas.

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
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZAFSHC 91
|

|

S v Tsipane and Another (476/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 91 (6 September 2007)

IN DIE
HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE
VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Hersiening
Nr. : 476/2007
In
die saak tussen:
DIE
STAAT
en
SABATA
PIET MOALUSI EN PETRUS TSIPANE
CORAM:
KRUGER,
R
et
C.J. MUSI, R
______________________________________________________
UITSPRAAK:
KRUGER,
R
______________________________________________________
GELEWER
OP:
6
SEPTEMBER 2007
[1] Hierdie
is ‘n hersiening. Beide beskuldigdes was aangekla van huisbraak
met die opset om te steel en diefstal. Beide het skuldig
gepleit.
Die aanklaer het daardie pleite aanvaar.
[2] Ná ondervraging
ingevolge artikel 112 het die landdros uitspraak gegee. Sy was nie
tevrede dat die beskuldigdes al die bewerings
op ‘n aanklag van
huisbraak met die opset om te steel en diefstal erken nie. Sy was
wel tevrede dat hulle al die elemente van
diefstal erken, en het
hulle aan diefstal skuldig bevind.
[3] In ‘n navraag is
die punt geopper of die landdros nie die beskuldigdes voor uitspraak
moes gevra het of sy ‘n pleit van skuldig
aan diefstal kan notuleer
nie. Die landdros gee toe dat sy die beskuldigdes so moes gevra het
en dat dit nie gedoen was nie. Sy
versoek dat die saak ingevolge
artikel 312 terugverwys moet word. ‘n Skuldigbevinding kan nie
onder artikel 112 gemaak word op
‘n ander klagte as waarop skuldig
gepleit is nie; ook nie ‘n mindere alternatiewe klagte, tensy die
beskuldigde daartoe toestem.
[4] Gevolglik word die
skuldigbevindings van beide beskuldigdes en hulle vonnisse ter syde
gestel en die landdros ingevolge artikel
312 van die Strafproseswet,
No. 51 van 1977 gelas om die bepalings van artikel 112 (1)(b) na te
kom.
_________________
KRUGER,
R
Ek stem saam.
_________________
C.J.
MUSI, R
/em

Back to Law Reports