S v Butelezi

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Harcourt J and Friedman J
• Judgment Date: 17 April 1964
• Citation: 1964 (3) SA 519 (N)
• Hearing Date: 17 April 1964
• Court: Natal Provincial Division

S v Butelezi
1964 (3) SA 519 (N) [*]

1964 (3) SA p519

Citation	1964 (3) SA 519 (N)
Court	Natal Provincial Division
Judge	Harcourt J and Friedman J
Heard	April 17, 1964
Judgment	April 17, 1964

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Evidence — Age — Estimation of — Duty of presiding official.

Headnote : Kopnota

H Where age is an important factor it is not sufficient for a magistrate, when a query is raised, merely to state that he was satisfied by the appearance of the accused that he was of a certain age. When a court estimates an accused person's age that fact must be recorded in the record of the case. Furthermore, in making such a record, the magistrate should state how he comes to make such notation, on what he acts, whether there is evidence available, whether he could get evidence, whether he had to rely on his own observation, or whether the estimate was purely a personal observation.

1964 (3) SA p520

Case Information

Review.

Judgment

Harcourt, J.:

In this automatic review case the accused, a Bantu male A said in the charge sheet to be 18 years of age, was charged with housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. It was alleged that on 1st March, 1964, he broke into and entered the garage of the complainant with intent to steal the goods therein and did wrongfully and unlawfully steal one umbrella, the property of the complainant.

B The accused pleaded guilty and, after adequate evidence aliunde had been led, was found guilty as charged. It may be noted in passing that after the close of the State case the accused indicated that he had nothing to say and no witnesses to call. After verdict the record indicates that the State prosecutor handed in the requisite form (S.A.P. 69 D) which showed that the accused had no previous convictions. The C accused was also noted as having nothing to say. The court then sentenced the accused to 'four (4) months' imprisonment and corporal punishment of four (4) strokes'.

When the matter first came on review the magistrate was asked whether any investigation was made as to the age of the accused in view of the D fact that the charge sheet reflected such age as 18 years. The magistrate was also asked whether he had given any thought to the expedient of suspending part or all of the sentence in view of the age of the accused, and the fact that he was a first offender. In this regard the magistrate's attention was drawn to the case of S v Muller, 1962 (4) SA 77 (N), in which the deterrent effect of such an expedient is discussed.

E The magistrate has now replied and, in regard to the first matter, his reply contains the following:

'If I had any doubt as to whether accused had already attained the age of 18 years I would most certainly have gone into the matter. But I personally considered accused to be of the age of 20 years. However, I was prepared to accept his word that he...