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
>>
2003
>>
[2003] ZANCHC 32
|
|
S v Jordaan (185/03) [2003] ZANCHC 32 (29 April 2003)
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: 185/03
Case
No: B5820/2002
Date
delivered: 2003-04-29
In
the review matter of
:
THE
STATE
versus
LESLEY
JORDAAN ACCUSED
Coram
:
MAJIEDT J et WILLIAMS AJ
JUDGEMENT
ON REVIEW
MAJIEDT
J:
In
this matter the accused had been correctly convicted of the offence
of housebreaking with the intent to commit theft and theft
and was
sentenced to twelve months correctional supervision in terms of the
provisions contained in section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal
Procedure
Act, 51 of 1977 (â
the
Act
â).
Thereafter
the accused was brought before Court again, since the accused had
failed to comply with the conditions of the sentence
of correctional
supervision. The Magistrate then found that the accused was not a
suitable candidate for correctional supervision
anymore. The
sentence was thereafter amended to one of six months imprisonment
wholly suspended on condition that the accused
not be convicted of
an offence of housebreaking with the intent to steal and of theft
committed during the period of suspension
of five years and an order
in terms of section 296 of the Act that the accused be referred to
and detained in a treatment centre
established under the Prevention
and Treatment of Drug Dependency Act, 1992. The Magistrate further
ordered that the accused remain
in custody in a single cell under
supervision of the prison authorities until such time as he is
admitted into a treatment centre.
My
colleague had queried the sentence, in particular the fact that the
accused had to be detained in a prison cell pending his admission
into a treatment centre. It appears from the record of the
proceedings that the accused had initially, after his arrest, been
detained in a place of safety, namely the Thusong shelter for
homeless children. Williams AJ queried why the Magistrate had
decided
against an order that the accused be kept at such a place of
safety again, pending his admission to a treatment centre.
The
Magistrate furnished reasons for his order to the effect that no
proper supervision and control could be exercised at the Thusong
shelter, hence his order that the accused be detained in custody in
prison. In my view those reasons were entirely acceptable,
but I in
turn raised another query, namely whether it was fair and just
towards the accused that he be kept for an inordinate length
of time
in a prison cell while he awaits admission to a treatment centre. I
had raised this query, since it was apparent from
the evidence on
record that the Magalies Treatment Centre where the accused is
supposed to be admitted, has a substantial waiting
list and that the
prospect is very real that the accused will have to spend several
months in custody pending his admission to
that treatment centre.
The
Magistrate has now responded to my query and has conceded that a
limit should be placed on the length of time that the accused
is to
spend in custody in prison awaiting his admission.
In
the premises I make the following order:
The
conviction is confirmed but the sentence imposed by the Magistrate is
set aside and substituted with the following:
The
accused is sentenced to six (6) months imprisonment which is wholly
suspended for a period of five (5) years on condition
that the
accused not be convicted of an offence of housebreaking with the
intent to steal and/or theft committed during the period
of
suspension.
In
terms of
section 296
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
, it
is ordered that the accused be referred to and detained in a
treatment centre established under the Prevention and Treatment
of
Drug Depency Act, 1992.
The
Court further orders that the accused remains in custody as
aforesaid for a period of three (3) months, pending his admission
into a treatment centre. Should the accused, after the expiry of
three months not have been admitted to a treatment centre,
the
accused shall be detained at a place of safety, pending his
admission at a treatment centre.
It
is further ordered that the accused be held in a single cell under
supervision of the prison authorities for the period of
three (3)
months as set forth in (iii) above
.
___________
SA
MAJIEDT
JUDGE
I
concur.
____________
C.C.
WILLIAMS
ACTING
JUDGE