S v Becket

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1987 (4) SA 8 (C)

S v Becket
1987 (4) SA 8 (C)

1987 (4) SA p8

Citation	1987 (4) SA 8 (C)
Court	Cape Provincial Division
Judge	Van Den Heever J and Baker J
Heard	September 19, 1986
Judgment	September 19, 1986

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Trial — Plea — Plea of not guilty — Questioning in terms of s 115 of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 — Informal incriminating admissions made by an undefended accused during questioning by court in terms of s H 115(2)(a) of Act — Magistrate not recording admissions, as provided in s 115(2)(b), thereby depriving them of status they would otherwise have had in terms of s 220 — No evidence tendered by State — State closing case — Court inviting accused to give evidence — Such invitation an irregularity as in effect accused was invited to convict I himself — Court should have suo motu discharged the accused when State closed its case.

Headnote : Kopnota

The accused was charged with housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft and escaping from custody. He was not represented at his trial and pleaded not guilty but made informal incriminating admissions during questioning by the magistrate in terms of s 115(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The magistrate failed to record the admissions J as provided in s 115(2)(b) thereby depriving them of the status they would have had in terms of s 220. The State led no evidence and closed

1987 (4) SA p9

its case. The magistrate did not discharge the accused but told A the accused he had the right to testify, thereby, in effect, indicating to the accused there was a case to meet. The question arose whether the court should suo motu have discharged the accused when the State closed its case.

Held, that the accused's plea explanations were not proof under s 220 of the Act and although they were of some evidential value they were insufficient by themselves to prove the State case.

Held, further, that, had the accused closed his case after the B prosecutor closed his, the court would have had to acquit the accused.

Held, further, that it was an irregularity for a magistrate to invite an undefended accused to enter the witness-box without warning him of the probable consequences, which meant in effect that he was being invited to convict himself.

Held, accordingly, that the convictions should be set aside.

Case Information

Review. C

Judgment

Baker J:

The accused in this matter was charged with:

(1)

housebreaking with intent to steal and attempted theft; and

(2)

a contravention of s 48(1)(a) of the Police Act 8 of 1959.

The supporting allegations in regard to charge I are that on 13 May 1986 he broke into the premises of NICRO in Woodstock and tried to steal certain clothing; he was caught before he could steal anything (no doubt an alarm sounded in the local police station and the police were on the scene in very short order). The allegations in substantiation of charge 2 are that on 14 E May he escaped from the Woodstock police station after his capture for the housebreaking which was the subject-matter of charge 1. He was brought to court on 21 May and pleaded not guilty to both charges. He was not prepared to divulge the basis for his pleas of not guilty but merely said 'Ek soek 'n prokureur'. He was given a remand to 30 May.

F On 30 May he said he had applied to the Legal Aid Board, which required certain forms to be completed. He said he was arranging for his 'mense' to fill in these forms. He was remanded until 19 June in order to obtain legal aid.

On 19 June he stated that he 'het geskrywe vir 'n prokureur maar het nog nie een gekry nie. Ek vra uitstel vir 14 dae.' He G was remanded until 3 July.

On 3 July he told the court that he had secured an attorney but had to inform the latter when the case would come up. He was remanded until 8 July.

On 8 July he informed the court that he had not yet succeeded in obtaining the services of an attorney. The court gave him a H final remand until 24 July.

On 24 July he advised the court that he no longer desired an attorney and requested the court to dispose of the case. The court then, acting in terms of s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, questioned the accused as to why he pleaded not guilty. The verbatim record (a very bad one) reads as follows I (omitting non-essentials):

'Wil jy vir my sê hoekom jy onskuldig pleit op die huisbraak-klagte? - Die rede hoekom ek onskuldig is edelagbare hoekom die betrokke aand wat ek gevang gewees het in daardie huis, ons was twee gewees op die misdaad edelagbare sien en die ander persoon wat nou nie teenwoordig is hier nie, hy was die een wat die ruit ingegooi het met 'n voorwerp J (onduidelik).

1987 (4) SA p10

Baker J

A Het jy geweet dat dit verkeerd is om daar in te gaan by die huis? - (Onduidelik). Jy het geweet dis verkeerd en julle twee het eintlik... dat julle sal - jy sal ingaan en hy sal waghou nê? - Nee ons het nie so besluit nie maar toe ons op die toneel kom edelagbare toe hy klaar die ruit ingegooi het, toe het hy my gesê (onduidelik).

So julle het toe ooreengekom dat hy sal buitekant wag, hy sal waghou en jy sal ingaan? - Dis reg.

B Wat wou jy eintlik daarbinne gaan maak het? - Die eintlike doel was om daar in te gaan om klere te gaan soek.

(H)et jy toe klere gekry? - Nee.

Is jy gevang voor jy by die klere kon kom? - (Onduidelik).

O ek sien het jy - jy het uit die gevangenis uitgekom en jy het toe klere gesoek? - Ja.

C Ek sien maar jy sê jy het nog nie die klere gekry nie,... word jy gevang? - Toe word ek gevang, ja.

Het jy enige reg gehad om daar in te gaan en die klere te gaan haal? - Geen reg gehad nie.

Die klere... het jy enige reg gehad om die klere te vat? - Geen reg gehad nie. Op die tweede klagte, die klagte dat jy D ontvlug het hier by die speurderskantore in Woodstock... wat is jou verdediging op daardie klagte? - (Onduidelik).

Jy bedoel hy het jou vasgeboei, ag gekap, dan bedoel jy hy het jou vasgeboei? - (Onduidelik).

Ja een deel van die boeie aan jou hand en die ander... jou hand was nou vasgeboei aan die vensterraam? - Aan die vensterraam ja.

(D)ie tyd toe jy nou daar by die speurderskantoor was, jy sê hy E het jou hier van die polisiestasie af gebring, waarvoor was jy toe gevang? - Vir die huisbraak. Vir hierdie huisbraak, o ek sien, maar jy was gearresteer nê? - (Onduidelik).

Jy was toe nog in aanhouding, die tyd wat hulle jou gevang het? - (Onduidelik). (J)y was nog vasgemaak toe maak jy jou los. Hulle het jou net sleg vasgemaak.. - (Onduidelik).

Maar jy het darem geweet jy mag nie weghardloop nie, reg? - (Onduidelik).'

J At that point the prosecutor closed the State case. The record was very indistinct, the typist who transcribed it noting on the fly-sheet that:

'Net die hof was hoorbaar. Die kanale waarop die aanklaer en die beskuldigde gepraat het... was onhoorbaar en verskriklik krapperig.'

G There is, however, enough on record to show that accused admitted that when the other person had broken the window accused was persuaded to enter the premises while the other person stood guard outside; that accused's purpose was to steal clothes, having just left prison and having no civilian clothing to wear; and the police caught him in flagrante delicto. After that he was taken to the Woodstock police H station and was handcuffed by one hand to the bars of a window. He probably slipped his hand out of the cuff and made off. He was clearly in custody at the time and had been rather ineptly handcuffed to the window frame.

When the prosecutor closed the State case the presiding magistrate (who was not the judicial officer who had recorded the original pleas but was a different one, acting in terms of I s 118) gave the accused an opportunity of putting up his own version. The accused elected to testify on oath. The record (once again omitting non-essentials) reads as follows:

'... die aanklaer sê hy gaan nou... jy het nou omtrent alles erken op hierdie klagtes en hy gaan nou nie getuies roep nie. Jy het ook nou die reg... om getuies te roep... om self te kom praat... Wil jy self kom praat? - J (Onduidelik).

Norman Becket: (Verklaar onder eed)

1987 (4) SA p11

Baker J

... Edelagbare vir die afgelope paar dae wat ek buite gewees A het.... Toe het ek die vriend gekry edelagbare wat saam met my gewees het... kom kort uit die hof uit en so het ek en hy besluit nou ons sal gaan daarso vir klere kyk en dan sal ons daardie klere verkoop en so aan, maar ongelukkig my agbare wel die polisie het my kom kry en so bygeval.

... Dis al wat ek kan sê....

Kruisondervraging deur aanklaer: Toe jy daar ingaan, was dit jou doel om klere te gaan uithaal? - Om klere te gaan kry B edelagbare.

Hoe laat was dit gewees? -... was ongeveer tussen sewe en agt.

Hof: Het julle toe die venster oopgemaak? - Nee die ruit was 'n groot ruit edelagbare en daar het 'n groot stuk glas ingelê toe is dit net mooi groot genoeg vir my toe gaan ek net deur die ruit deur die gat.'

That was the defence case. Accused said nothing about the E escape from custody.

The court thereupon found accused guilty, on count 1, of housebreaking with intent to steal, and on count 2, of escaping as charged.

At this stage the prosecutor handed in a list of the accused's previous convictions. The list was impressive; it included four thefts, three housebreakings, three robberies, one assault and D three escapes. The trial court decided that accused deserved a heavier sentence than a district court could impose, and referred the case to the regional court for sentence. That was on 24 July. The record was duly despatched to the regional court. On 11 September the president of the regional court wrote to the Registrar of this Court stating that as the record E was not capable of being transcribed the matter had been referred back to the presiding officer with a request...