Rex v Coetzee

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeStratford ACJ, Beyers JA, De Villiers JA and Tindall AJA
Judgment Date01 September 1936
Hearing Date01 September 1936
CourtAppellate Division

Rex Respondent v Coetzee Applicant
1936 AD 471

1936 AD p471


Citation

1936 AD 471

Court

Appellate Division

Judge

Stratford ACJ, Beyers JA, De Villiers JA and Tindall AJA

Heard

September 1, 1936

Judgment

September 1, 1936

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Appeal — From Magistrate's Court to Appellate Division — Leave to appeal against sentence — When granted.

Headnote : Kopnota

The Appellate Division will not grant leave to appeal in a criminal case from a magistrate's court when the sole ground of appeal is that the sentence was excessive unless the Court is satisfied that no reasonable man ought to have imposed such sentence or that there are circumstances bearing on the matter which the magistrate failed to consider or that he followed a wrong principle in imposing the sentence or exceeded the powers conferred upon him by the Legislature.

1936 AD p472

Case Information

Application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division (GREENBERG, J and SOLOMON, J.) dismissing an appeal from a conviction in the magistrate's court of Johannesburg. The accused had been found guilty of acquiring unwrought precious metal in contravention of sec. 113 of Act 35 of 1908 (Transvaal) on two counts. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment and a fine of £50 or, in default of payment, an additional three months' imprisonment, on each count. Further facts appear from the judgment of STRATFORD, A.C.J.

Applicant in person.

E. Beardmore K.C. (Attorney-General of O.F.S.) for the Crown, was not called upon.

Judgment

Stratford, A.C.J.:

This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction by a magistrate which conviction went on appeal to the Transvaal Provincial Division. That Division dismissed the appeal and refused a special application for leave to appeal. The application in that Court was based on a variety of grounds, but only one ground is now relied on - namely that the sentences were excessive. For an application for special leave to appeal to this Court in a criminal case to succeed it must conform to the requisites laid down in Rex v Wessels (1933 AD 395) which has been often referred to. They are: "(1) If the appeal is on fact, then leave will only be granted if it is manifest on the record that there has been a miscarriage of justice. (2) If the appeal involves a question of law on which the guilt of the accused depends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Rex v Kalogeropoulos
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...should also be granted to appeal against the sentence, which was assessed on a wrong basis, Rex v Sandig (1937 AD 296); Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471); Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re Rex v Berger (1936 AD Lutge, K.C., was not called upon to reply on the merits. Cur adv vult. Postea (Octob......
  • Rex v Patz
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...41); Wills (supra, p. 103); Kenny (supra, p. 253); Wharton (supra). The sentence was not excessive; Rex v Neal (1945 AD 1); Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471). Banks, in Cur. adv. vult. Postea (October 22nd). Judgment Watermeyer, C.J.: This case comes before this Court on certain points of law, re......
  • Rex v Zulu and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...persisted for many years and was oft repeated by, I think, all the Courts, including the Appellate Division, A cf. Rex v Coetzee, 1936 AD 471 at p. 472, and was approved in Rex v Ford, 1939 AD 559 at p. 560. In 1922, however, in Rex v Myburgh, 1922 AD 249, which was an appeal from the decis......
  • Rex v Nxumalo
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Wessels has been referred to in several subsequent cases, e.g. Rex v Mahomed (1934 AD 511), Rex v van Rooyen (1935 AD 323), Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471), and either approved or at any rate not dissented from. The language used in Rex v Wessels seems to suggest that the Court hearing an appli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Rex v Kalogeropoulos
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...should also be granted to appeal against the sentence, which was assessed on a wrong basis, Rex v Sandig (1937 AD 296); Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471); Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re Rex v Berger (1936 AD Lutge, K.C., was not called upon to reply on the merits. Cur adv vult. Postea (Octob......
  • Rex v Patz
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...41); Wills (supra, p. 103); Kenny (supra, p. 253); Wharton (supra). The sentence was not excessive; Rex v Neal (1945 AD 1); Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471). Banks, in Cur. adv. vult. Postea (October 22nd). Judgment Watermeyer, C.J.: This case comes before this Court on certain points of law, re......
  • Rex v Zulu and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...persisted for many years and was oft repeated by, I think, all the Courts, including the Appellate Division, A cf. Rex v Coetzee, 1936 AD 471 at p. 472, and was approved in Rex v Ford, 1939 AD 559 at p. 560. In 1922, however, in Rex v Myburgh, 1922 AD 249, which was an appeal from the decis......
  • Rex v Nxumalo
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Wessels has been referred to in several subsequent cases, e.g. Rex v Mahomed (1934 AD 511), Rex v van Rooyen (1935 AD 323), Rex v Coetzee (1936 AD 471), and either approved or at any rate not dissented from. The language used in Rex v Wessels seems to suggest that the Court hearing an appli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT