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
>>
2004
>>
[2004] ZANCHC 71
|
|
S v Janes (corrected judgment) (340/04) [2004] ZANCHC 71 (3 September 2004)
Reportable: Yes /
No
Circulate to
Judges: Yes / No
Circulate
to Magistrates: Yes / No
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Northern
Cape Division)
High
Court Review Case No: 340/04
Magistrate
Case No: L63/04
Date
delivered: 2004-09-03
In
the review matter of
:
THE
STATE
versus
ALFRED
JANES ACCUSED
Coram
:
MAJIEDT J
et
LACOCK
J
CORRECTED
JUDGEMENT ON REVIEW
MAJIEDT
J:
The
accused was convicted of a contravention of the provisions contained
in section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 i.e. unlawful dealing
in dagga.
He was sentenced to a fine of R2000.00 or in default of payment to 6
months imprisonment. The entire sentence was suspended
for a period
of 5 years on certain conditions.
I
had queried the magistrate on automatic review as follows:
Was the
magistrate correct in invoking the provisions of sec. 112(1)(a)?
The
sentence (fine) imposed exceeds the statutory limit determined by the
Minister in Government Notice R239 of 14 February 2003 in
Government
Gazette nr. 24393 which was fixed in the sum of R1500.00
The
magistrate has now conceded in reply that he has erred insofar as the
fine exceeds the statutory limit determined by law and requests
that
the fine imposed be reduced in accordance with the prescribed
statutory limit.
As
indicated in my review query, quoted above, the statutory limit
determined by the Minister, is R1500.00. Consequently the
concession
by the magistrate is well made and the sentence imposed
should be corrected accordingly.
After
issuing the previous order, my attention has been drawn to the fact
that the sentence does not accord with the provisions
contained in
sec. 17(e) read with sec. 13(f) of Act 140 of 1992,
which stipulates a sentence of imprisonment or
imprisonment
and
a fine for contraventions of sec. 5(b) of the said Act
Due
to this patent error, the sentence stands to be corrected in terms
of the powers contained in Uniform Rule 42(1)(b).
I
issue the following corrected order:
6.1 The
accusedâs conviction is confirmed.
6.2 The
sentence imposed is set aside and substituted with the following:
THE ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF R1500.00 (ONE
THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED RAND) and 6 (SIX) MONTHS IMPRISONMENT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE
SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 5 (FIVE) YEARS ON CONDITION
THAT THE
ACCUSED IS NOT CONVICTED OF CONTRAVENING SECTION 5(b) READ WITH
SECTION 1, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21 AND 25 OF ACT 140/1992
OR SECTION 4(b)
READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21 AND 25 OF ACT 140/1992 WHICH
IS COMMITTED DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.
6.3 THE
SENTENCE IS ANTEDATED TO 20 JULY 2004.
___________
SA
MAJIEDT
JUDGE
I
concur.
____________
HJ
LACOCK
JUDGE