Rex v Foord

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA and Davis AJA
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1948
• Hearing Date: 14 May 1948
• Court: Appellate Division

Schreiner, J.A.:

The applicant was convicted, upon remittal, by a magistrate on two counts of contravening Sec. 12 of the Civil Disabilities Act, 1942, of Southern Rhodesia. the Act Provides for the Making by the High Court of an Order of Civil Disability Against Persons Falling within Certain Categories. Every Order Has Certain Effects which Necessarily Follow Its Grant, But the Court When Making the Order May Also Include in It One or More Additional Provisions, One of which May be that the Person Against Whom the Order Is Made Shall Not Purchase, Possess, Carry or Use Any Firearm or Ammunition. an Order Including Such a Provision Had Been Made Against the Applicant. Sec. 12 of the Act Provides That

'Any person who purchases, possesses, carries or uses any fire-arm or ammunition contrary to the provisions of any order made against him under this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period not exceeding twelve months.'

In the first count the applicant was charged with possessing, carrying or using a 22 rifle, in the second with possessing three shotgun cartridges. After convicting the applicant the magistrate sentenced him to three months' imprisonment on each count and suspended half of the total of six months for a period of three years on condition that the applicant was not convicted in that period of a similar offence. The applicant's appeal to the High Court of Southern Rhodesia failed so far as the convictions were concerned but the sentences were modified. On the first count a period of six weeks of the sentence of three months' imprisonment was suspended and on the second count the sentence was reduced to one month's imprisonment the whole of which was suspended, the suspensions being for the same period and subject to the same condition as the magistrate had directed.

Schreiner JA

The Applicant Then Applied to This Court for Leave to Appeal, But His Application Was Refused, the Reasons for the Refusal to be Furnished Later. These Reasons Follow.

Three points were argued on the applicant's behalf, namely, (a) that the form of the conviction on count 1 was defective, (b) that the conviction on count 2 was wrong, in that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mental element, and (c) that the sentences, even as modified by the High Court, were excessive.

The first point raises the question of the competency of a general verdict of guilty on a charge which recites a list, taken from a statutory provision, of contraventions or forms of contravention of the provision, joined in the...