About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2006
>>
[2006] ZANCHC 3
|
|
S v Farrell (C1008/06 , R64/06) [2006] ZANCHC 3 (3 November 2006)
Reportable: YES/NO
Circulate
to Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: YES/NO
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION)
CASE NO:
C1008/06
Review
Nr: 64/06
Date Delivered: 03/11/2006
In the matter between:
THE STATE
VERSUS
HENDRIK
FARREL
CORAM:
TLALETSI AJP et MOLWANTWA AJ
JUDGMENT
ON SPECIAL REVIEW
MOLWANTWA AJ:
INTRODUCTION
1. The Senior magistrate
of Upington sent this case on special review because he is of the
view that the accusedâs plea to the charge
of assault common
âdisclosed a valid defence.â The accused pleaded guilty. A
statement in terms of section 112 of the Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of
1997 was read into the record by his legal representative. He was
convicted as charged based on the admissions
he made in the statement
and was sentenced to R300.00 or 1 month imprisonment suspended
conditionally.
2. The background to this
case as gleaned from his s112 statement is as follows: The accused
was at his home in Upington on 1 April
2006 when two police officers
arrived and attempted to arrest him. They did not tell him what
offence he had allegedly committed.
Instead they pulled him to the
police van. He hit one of them, the complainant, Jan Matthys with a
fist and head-butted him. According
to the accused they were
arresting him wrongfully so he resisted the arrest. He admitted that
he acted unlawfully as he knew he
had other remedies available in the
event that the police were wrongful in their own conduct.
3. This
statement was made by the accused assisted by his legal
representative. It was duly signed by the accused after he confirmed
the contents thereof. There is no indication whatsoever that the
accused misunderstood anything. There is no indication that the
legal representative did not represent the wishes of his client.
Ex
facie
the
statement all the elements of the offence have been addressed
adequately. I do not see any reason to set these proceedings aside.
4. In the light of what I
have said on the conviction and merits of this matter I find that the
case is not reviewable.
In the circumstances I
make the following order:
ORDER
The
case is not reviewable. The conviction and sentence imposed by the
Magistrate are confirmed.
_________________
B
C MOLWANTWA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
(NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION)
I concur.
___________________
L
P TLALETSI
ACTING
JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT
(NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION)