R v Kula

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1958 (4) SA 675 (C)

R v Kula
1958 (4) SA 675 (C)

1958 (4) SA p675

Citation	1958 (4) SA 675 (C)
Court	Cape Provincial Division
Judge	Herbstein J, Watermeyer J and Bloch J
Heard	August 11, 1958
Judgment	September 9, 1958

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde C

Criminal procedure — Evidence — Conviction on plea of guilty — Plea alone cannot be relied on to prove any element of offence — Whether it has evidential value where there is prima facie proof — Act 56 of 1955, sec. 258 (1) (b).

Headnote : Kopnota

In terms of section 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955 a magistrate may only E convict if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was actually committed, but the plea of guilty alone cannot be relied upon to furnish proof of any particular element of the offence.

Quaere: Whether a plea of guilty has evidential value in the sense that it could serve to convert prima facie proof that the offence was actually committed into proof beyond a reasonable doubt. F

Case Information

Appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

L. P. Van Breda, for the appellant: The offence has not been adequately proved as required by sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955 by reason of G the absence of evidence aliunde of the commission of the crime. Appellant should thus have been discharged in spite of her plea of guilty. See Queen v Strydom, 1 S.C. 60; R v Scheepers, (1902) 16 E.D.C. 94; Sibisi v Bruyns, 1913 NPD 511; R v Schrade, 1912 CPD 965; R v Welkom, 1940 E.D.L. 298; R v Kootbedien and Another, 1936 CPD 277; R v Henkins, 1954 (3) SA 560; R v Bedi and Another, H 1941 OPD 242; R v Kwenja and Others, 1942 OPD 275; R v Venter, 1946 (1) P.H. H.40; R v Vries, 1947 (2) P.H. H.193; R v Jacobs, 1956 (2) P.H. H.264; R v Mtshali, 1956 (2) P.H. H.289; R v Furstenberg, 1947 (1) SA 583; R v Steenkamp, 1947 (1) SA 714; R v Shasha, 1948 (2) SA 996; R v Hilarius, 1949 (2) SA 278; R v Matumba, 1949 (2) SA 545; R v van Dyk, 1949 (3) SA 118;

1958 (4) SA p676

R v Simpson, 1949 (3) SA 427; R v F., 1951 (2) SA 1; R v Mataung, 1953 (4) SA 35; R v Majola, 1954 (1) SA 287; R v C., 1955 (1) SA 380; R v Soqokomashe and Others, 1956 (2) SA 142; R. A v. McWilliam, 1958 (2) SA 243; R v Liebenberg, 1958 (2) SA 575; R v V., 1958 (3) SA 474. But see R v Radov, 1957 (4) SA 47; R v Leuner, 1958 (2) SA 582, which, it is submitted, are wrongly decided. Where the accused pleads guilty the plea as such does not constitute an admission in terms of sec. 284 (1) of Act 56 of 1955. See Swift S.A. Law of Criminal Procedure p. 392 and authorities quoted B therein under '1'. Although a statement made by the accused before or at the trial (excluding a plea of guilty), as e.g. a statement from the dock, would be 'evidence', it takes the matter no further if the Crown does not prove the commission of the offence in terms of sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955. See R v van Dyk, supra; R v Simpson, supra; R v Hendrikse, 1947 (2) P.H. H.357. Unconfirmed evidence of the C accused means evidence given by her which is not confirmed in a material respect by other evidence. See R v Blyth, 1940 AD 363. Sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955 is peremptory and in the absence of proof aliunde of the commission of the offence, the conviction is unlawful. See R v Kwenja and Others, supra.

P. H. J. Krynauw, for the Crown: Die woord 'getuienis' soos gebruik in art. 258 (1) (b) van Wet 56 van 1955 sluit 'n pleit van skuldig deur die beskuldigde in. Sien R v Leuner, 1958 (2) SA 582; R v Radov, 1957 (4) SA 47; R v Kumalo and Another, 1930 AD 193 op bl. 202, 206, 207 en 208; R v Becker, 1929 AD 167 op bl. 171 en 172. 'n Pleit van skuldig staan dus gelyk aan 'n bekentenis binne die raamwerk van art. 244 van Wet 56 van 1955. D

Van Breda, in reply. E

Cur adv vult.

Postea (September 9th).

Judgment

F Watermeyer, J.:

The appellant, a native woman, pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a charge of having stolen 40 1b. of meat the property of some person or persons to the prosecutor unknown. After the evidence of a police constable had been led, and the appellant had made an unsworn G statement from the dock, she was convicted and sentenced.

She now appeals against the conviction on the ground that there was no proof, such as is required by sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955, that the offence of theft was actually committed.

H The constable stated in evidence that at about 10.30 p.m. on the night in question he came upon the appellant in a public street carrying 40 1b. of beef in a sack. The meat bore no marks to show that it had been passed by a health inspector. The appellant said that she had bought it from a person whom she did not know at the Maitland abbatoirs. The constable went on to make two further statements, which may or may not have been hearsay evidence, namely that meat is not sold to the public at the abbatoirs, and that only carcasses are

1958 (4) SA p677

Watermeyer J

sold there. That concluded the evidence for the Crown. The accused elected to make an unsworn statement and said:

'Ek het vir iemand wat binne die slagpale werk geld gegee om vir my vleis te bring. Ek ken die persoon nie.'

Now it seems...