The State V Sheehama: Criminal Review
The State V Sheehama: Criminal Review
: CR 48/2010
THE STATE
versus
ATILA SHEEHAMA
REVIEW JUDGMENT
SIBOLEKA, J.:
[1] The 59 year old accused was charged for Reckless or Ngligent
[2] When this matter came before me on review I directed the following
[3] The Magistrate’s reply has now been received and it reads:
“AD PARAGRAPH 1:
I have perused the CPA, and nowhere is it mentioned that the
accused should be explained of Section 112(1)(b) consequences,
from my own interpretation, does this section basically upon an
accused indicating that he is guilty, and the prosecutor directs the
court to apply such Section, is the court only in a position to
question the accused as to why he/she is pleading guilty, the
court is thus normally on the look-out for any defence the accused
may raise, or any mistake made upon pleading guilty, due to the
fact that such person is a unsophisticated person …”
Also:
Also:
AD PARAGRAPH 2:
As I have found; was it not immediately imposed on a magistrate
to furnish reasons for sentence however, should the Judge be of
an opinion should such magistrate be queried with regard to
sentence. However, I apologize for thus omission.
AD PARAGRAPH 3:
In the matter before me, have I convicted the accused of C/S 80(1)
of Act 22 of 1999 – Negligent Driving. The Traffic Act 22/99 at
Section 51(1) in no uncertain terms provides that:
“51(1) Where a person who is the holder of a driving licence is
convicted by a court of an offence –
(a) Under Section 78(1)(a), (b), (c) in the case of an accident
which resulted in the death or injury of a person;
(b) Under Section 80(1) of driving a vehicle recklessly; or
(c) Under Section 82(1), (2), (5) or (9)
The court shall, apart from imposing a sentence and except if the
court under Section 50(1)(a) issues an order for the cancellation of
the licence, issue an order whereby every driving licence held by
such person is suspended in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (2).
Thus Section 51(1) Act 22/99 does not concern offences such as
Negligent driving.”
[4] On the query why the provisions of section 112(1)(b) was not
the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No. 51 of 1977 but did not come across a
section that requires her to do so. This reasoning is not correct and is
The Magistrate has vehemently denied knowledge of the reason why such
the fourth paragraph of her reply to my query, she has quite correctly
stated that very important reason why section 112(1)(b) of Act 51/77
“It may well be desirable for a judicial officer to do all those things
where the accused is obviously an illiterate or uneducated
person…”
For the benefit of the Magistrate and others who have recently been
appointed to the bench (Lower Courts) I will quote the annexure (pro
forma form) on section 112(1)(b) that was among the various annexures
handed out to all Magistrates by the Justice Training Centre some years
“PLEA OF GUILTY
Proceedings in terms of
Section 112(1)(b) of Act 51 of 1977
These are the annexures currently being used in all Magistrates Courts
country wide. They contain various legal rights that have to be explained
easy reference.
1977 as the Magistrate argues. It is one of the values that comes along
[6] If section 112(1)(b) explanation is not done, the accused may in the
end be surprised why the Court convicts him without evidence being
adjudication of justice.
[7] I will now look at the list of some of the rights that need to be
trial:
pleading;
the right of the accused at the close of the States’ case: such
the right of the accused in terms of sec. 115 after he has tendered
the right of the accused to seek the State’s assistance to bring his
witnesses to Court;
postponement;
imposed on him.
[8] The above list is not exhaustive, the reason being that law is a
developing phenomena. More rights could still gradually find their way
judgment and sentence in all instances where evidence has been lead
(trial) and providing reasons for sentence only, in all convictions in terms
the accused, the nature of the offence and the interest of society. (See
State v Zinn 1969(2) SA 537 and State v Rabie 1975(4) SA 855 (A).
[11] On the query why the Magistrate did not invoke section 51 after
reads:
[12] The Court shall apart from imposing a sentence and except if the
court under section 50(1)(a) issues an order for the cancellation of the
licence, issue an order whereby every driving licence held by such person
for such a period as the Court may determine, but which shall not be
less than
conviction.
The use of the words “… the Court shall, …” in section 51(1) makes it
conviction for contravening sections 78(1)(a), (b) and (c); 80(1), and 82(1),
(2), (5) and (9). (See State v James Shimwandi Case No. CR 70/2008
11
High Court Review case No. 340/2008 delivered on 17.06.2008 and State
____________________
SIBOLEKA, J
I agree.
______________________
NDAUENDAPO, J
12