S v Bata

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ebrahim J
• Judgment Date: 18 September 2003
• Docket Number: CA & R 34/03
• Court: Ciskei High Court
• Hearing Date: 18 September 2003
• Citation: 2003 JDR 0550 (CkH)

Ebrahim J:

1.

This matter came on automatic review pursuant to the provisions of s 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 ('the CPA').

2.

The accused was charged with contravening s 63(1) read with ss 1, 63(2), 63(3), 69, 73, 89(1) and 89(5) of the National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996, ('The NRTA') in that he drove a vehicle on a public road recklessly or negligently. In the alternative the accused was charged with contravening s 64 read with ss 1, 69, 73, 89(1) and 89(6) of the National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996, in that he drove a vehicle on a public road without reasonable consideration for any other person using the road (i.e inconsiderate driving.)

2003 JDR 0550 p2

Ebrahim J

3.

The accused pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of inconsiderate driving and, after being questioned by the magistrate pursuant to the provisions of s 112(1)(b) of the CPA, was convicted of this offence. In consequence thereof the magistrate imposed the following sentence:

'Fined R5000 (five thousand rand) or to undergo 6 (six) months imprisonment wholly suspended for 2 years on condition that accused is not convicted of reckless, negligent or inconsiderate driving committed during the period of suspension.'

4.

In regard to the condition of suspension the following query was addressed to the magistrate:

'1.

Since the accused was convicted of contravening section 64 ('inconsiderate driving') of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 why does the condition of suspension also refer to a conviction in respect of a contravention of section 63 ('reckless or negligent driving')?

2.

Is it also intended that the condition of suspension should apply where the accused is convicted of an offence and is then sentenced to a fine only.'

5.

The magistrate replied as follows:

'I considered it not improper to include the offences of reckless and negligent driving in the scope of condition of suspension. The inclusion of these offences was reasonable and necessary. The inclusion was reasonable in the sense these offences are in the nature related to the offence for which accused was convicted, that is inconsiderate driving. All these offences entail a deviation from the reasonable driving standard. Thin line divides inconsiderate driving from negligent driving as is the case between reckless and negligent driving. Very often these offences overlap. The facts of the case necessitated a wider condition than the one patterned...