S v Collins
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Botha AR |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 1990 |
| Citation | 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A) |
| Hearing Date | 13 March 1990 |
| Counsel | A Williams namens die appellant J J du Toit namens die Staat |
| Court | Appellate Division |
Botha AR:
Die appellant het in die landdroshof van Johannesburg tereggestaan op 'n aanklag dat hy art 2(a) van die Wet op die Misbruik B van Afhanklikheidsvormende Stowwe en Rehabilitasiesentrums 41 van 1971 oortree het, deurdat hy een Mandrax tablet verkoop het aan ene Meshack Ndlela. Hy het skuldig gepleit en is skuldig bevind. Die landdros het hom 'n vonnis opgelê van vier jaar gevangenisstraf, waarvan hy twee jaar gevangenisstraf opgeskort het vir vyf jaar op sekere voorwaardes. Teen hierdie vonnis het die appellant geappelleer na die Witwatersrandse C Plaaslike Afdeling, wat sy appèl van die hand gewys het en hom verlof geweier het om 'n verdere appèl na hierdie Hof te voer. Daarna het die appellant 'n versoekskrif gerig aan die Hoofregter, ten gevolge waarvan aan hom verlof toegestaan is om teen sy vonnis na hierdie Hof in hoër beroep te kom.
Die appellant is 'n 37-jarige man wat geen vorige veroordelings van enige aard het nie. Sy persoonlike omstandighede en die omstandighede D waaronder die oortreding gepleeg is, blyk uit die volgende uittreksel uit die oorkonde, met betrekking tot die getuienis wat die appellant ter strafversagting afgelê het:
'Ek is 37-jaar oud - ongetroud. Ek het 'n 13-jarige dogter. Sy woon by haar ma. Ek betaal R20 per week onderhoud. Ek smous met vrugte en lekkers by Noordgesig skoolterrein. Verdien R90-R100 per week. Ek woon in dieselfde huis as my ouers. My ouers kry pensioen. Ek help om E kos te koop. Ek voel nie lekker oor die misdaad wat ek gepleeg het nie. Ek gebruik self dagga en Mandrax.
Ek het net een pil by my gehad. As ek nie gesê was om dit te verkoop sou ek dit nie verkoop het, maar ek sou dit vat. Dit was verkoop gedurende polisieoptrede.
Vir hoeveel het u die pil verkoop?
F R4.
Hoeveel het u daarvoor betaal?
R4.
U het nie geweet dit was 'n polisielokval nie?
Nee.
Hoekom het u die pil verkoop?
G Die persoon aan wie ek die pil verkoop het is bekend aan my. Hy het my gevra om 'n pil aan hom te verkoop.
Hoe het hy geweet u sal hom kan help?
Ons werk saam - hy het geweet ek sal hê.
Geen verdere vrae deur hof.'
Die duidelike beeld wat hieruit na vore tree is dié van die andersins H wetsgehoorsame man wat egter dagga en Mandrax vir sy eie gebruik aanwend, en wat op hierdie besondere geleentheid 'n Mandrax tablet wat hy by hom gehad het, verskaf het aan iemand wat aan hom bekend...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
S v Hermanus
...to the particular circumstances of the case, with the result that the appellant H received an unduly severe sentence. Cf S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A) at The Court a quo took into account, in aggravation of sentence, that on the day the appellant sold the 20 tablets to the police trap s......
-
S v Malimela
...conviction or sentence falls within the constricted ambit of the qualified condition of suspension. See in this regard S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A). 2002 JDR 0752 Moseneke J 9. In the light of the aforegoing I make the following order: (a) The sentence of a fine of R1 000 or four month......
-
S v Hermanus
...to the particular circumstances of the case, with the result that the appellant H received an unduly severe sentence. Cf S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A) at The Court a quo took into account, in aggravation of sentence, that on the day the appellant sold the 20 tablets to the police trap s......
-
S v Hermanus
...to the particular circumstances of the case, with the result that the appellant H received an unduly severe sentence. Cf S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A) at The Court a quo took into account, in aggravation of sentence, that on the day the appellant sold the 20 tablets to the police trap s......
-
S v Malimela
...conviction or sentence falls within the constricted ambit of the qualified condition of suspension. See in this regard S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A). 2002 JDR 0752 Moseneke J 9. In the light of the aforegoing I make the following order: (a) The sentence of a fine of R1 000 or four month......
-
S v Hermanus
...to the particular circumstances of the case, with the result that the appellant H received an unduly severe sentence. Cf S v Collins 1990 (1) SACR 577 (A) at The Court a quo took into account, in aggravation of sentence, that on the day the appellant sold the 20 tablets to the police trap s......