S v De Bruin

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Gordon AJ
• Judgment Date: 06 August 1990
• Counsel: L M Hodes for the appellant Mrs A A Watt for the State
• Citation: 1991 (2) SACR 158 (W)
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Gordon AJ:

Appellant appeared in the regional court on the following charges: A

(1)

culpable homicide arising from a motor collision on 12 March 1987, in which three male persons were killed;

(2)

driving a vehicle while under the influence of liquor, alternatively, driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0,08 grams per 100 millilitres, namely 0,15 grams;

(3)

B driving negligently or recklessly.

He was initially unrepresented and pleaded guilty to count 2 (main and alternative).

The magistrate questioned him on his plea of guilty. Accused admitted that he had been drinking before driving, but said he did not know how much he drank. He thought that he had had a few glasses of wine, but added that his condition was such that he thought he could drive C properly. A plea of not guilty was accordingly entered and the case proceeded.

The State called two witnesses, both university students. To summarise their evidence (similar in all material respects), they stated that they were with a group of students who had been studying. At about midnight, as residents, they drove from the university to Hillbrow to buy some food. On the way back they travelled along their accustomed route, down D De Korte Street, travelling west, slightly downhill, to the university.

At about 30 paces from the robot-controlled intersection of Bertha Street, a car passed on their left. De Korte is a one-way street; Bertha Street too. They had slowed down for the robot, which was against them. The car that passed them (a bakkie) was travelling at approximately 60 kilometres per hour. One of the students said that this car 'flew' past E them. The bakkie entered the intersection against the red light.

There can be no doubt about these facts which were not challenged. At that moment a Combi car, travelling south in Bertha Street entered the intersection and collided with the bakkie. The Combi overturned. The passengers, six in all, were flung out. They lay sprawled in the street. The students ran out after stopping their car and gave assistance. There F was a dental student among them giving the main help. They phoned for an ambulance and the police. The consequences of the collision were tragic in the extreme. Three of the passengers in the Combi were killed. The others were taken to hospital with injuries. The accused also sustained injuries.

At this stage the case was postponed for further evidence. At the resumption the accused was legally represented. He now changed his plea G to one of guilty of culpable homicide. He handed up a statement on this plea of guilty, accepted as evidence by consent. In the statement the accused admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle, that he was negligent whilst driving the motor vehicle in that he entered a robot-controlled intersection at a time when the robot was red for him. This is of importance because of a further statement made on the question of sentence. He further admitted that he was involved in the H accident in the intersection and that his negligence contributed to the accident. He admitted the identity of the deceased and that they died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision. He admitted that this conduct was wrongful and unlawful.

It is noted that there was no mention made in the statement of the accused's sobriety, or of the alcohol he had consumed. It was probably I advantageous for the defence to omit this aspect and to take advantage of the fact that the charge to which he had now pleaded guilty was one of culpable homicide.

In view of the evidence already led...