S v Jara (413/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 48 (12 May 2005)

45 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Sentencing — Improper sentence under the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances Act — The accused, Sivuyile Sidwell Jara, was convicted of dealing in dagga but received a sentence that did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 17E of Act 140/1992. The magistrate conceded the impropriety of the sentence. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years, subject to conditions.

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
>>
2005
>>
[2005] ZAFSHC 48
|

|

S v Jara (413/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 48 (12 May 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No. : 413/2005
In
the review between:
THE
STATE
versus
SIVUYILE
SIDWELL JARA
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
CILLIé
J
et
EBRAHIM
J
_____________________________________________________
JUDGEMENT:
EBRAHIM
J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
12
MAY 2005
_____________________________________________________
[1] This matter was
placed before me by way of ordinary review procedure.
[2] On consideration, it
became apparent that the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate
was improper in that it did not comply
with the provisions of section
17E of Act 140/1992 - (The Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances
Act 1992) which compels a sentence
of imprisonment to be imposed on
an offender convicted of the offence of dealing in dagga (section
5(b) of Act 40/1992).
[3] The
learned magistrate has conceded that the sentence is not competent
and that it ought to be set aside.
[4] It
is accordingly ordered that the sentence imposed be set aside and
substituted with the following sentence:
18 (Eighteen) months
imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 (three) years on conditions that
accused is not convicted of contravention
of Section 5(b) Act 140 of
1992 committed during period of suspension and a further R5 000,00
(Five thousand Rand) or 18 (eighteen)
months imprisonment.
_____________
S. EBRAHIM, J
I
concur.
____________
C.B. CILLIé, J
/sp