S v Emery

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1963 (4) SA 588 (T)

S v Emery
1963 (4) SA 588 (T)

1963 (4) SA p588

Citation	1963 (4) SA 588 (T)
Court	Transvaal Provincial Division
Judge	Ludorf J and Galgut J
Heard	August 26, 1963
Judgment	August 26, 1963

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde H

Criminal law — Traffic offences — Prosecution for — Service of notice by traffic officer or inspector of licences — Competency of — Ord. 18 of 1957 (T).

Headnote : Kopnota

A traffic officer or inspector of licences has the power, in terms of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 18 of 1957 (T), to serve or give a notice of intended prosecution and a traffic officer has, in speeding cases, the right to serve any notice.

1963 (4) SA p589

Case Information

Appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

E. M. Wentzel, for the appellant: The power given to a police officer or A an inspector of licences to give the notice under the 1931 Ordinance has been repealed by virtue of the fact that in the 1957 Ordinance the whole of the 1931 Ordinance has been repealed. The ordinary meaning of sec. 104 of the 1957 Ordinance is that 'a notice of the intended prosecution' can only be given by someone who has the power to prosecute, i.e. the Attorney-General or his delegate, see R v van der Westhuizen, 1929 CPD 484; cf. however, R v Sims, 1930 T.P.D. 689, B which was followed in R v O'Linn, 1960 (1) SA 545. Legislative history is important in determining the meaning of a statute and prima facie a change of wording must be taken to be a change of meaning, D. R. Fraser & Co v Minister of National Revenue, 1949 A.C. 24 at p. 33; C Union Bank of London v Ingram, (1882) 20 Ch. D. 463 at p. 465. It is submitted that Sims' case, supra, is distinguishable because the wording of the 1915 and 1957 Ordinances is not identical, in that, (a) the 1915 Ordinance provides that the notice must be 'given' whereas the 1957 Ordinance provides that it must be 'served'; (b) only 48 hours was allowed in the 1915 Ordinance whereas the period has been extended to 10 D days; (c) in the 1957 Ordinance provision is made for particulars of the offence to be given.

C. Beukes, for the State.

Judgment

Galgut, J.:

The appellant was charged with contravening sec. 102 (2) E read with sec. 102 (1) and sec. 146 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 18 of 1957, as amended. It was alleged that he unlawfully drove a motor vehicle in excess of the general speed limit of 35 miles per hour, namely that he drove at 51.13 miles per hour in the City of Johannesburg. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of R16 or to serve 16 days' imprisonment.

F The facts can be very shortly stated. It appears that on the 22nd December, 1961, at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning he was travelling along a public street in Johannesburg, and it is common cause that the speed at which he was travelling was 51.13 miles per hour, and it is also common cause that the general speed limit applicable in Johannesburg is 35 miles per hour. He was stopped by the traffic G inspectors and a notice, which formed exh. A in the case, was issued to him. This notice is commonly referred to as a 'spot fine ticket'. It is issued in terms of sec. 104 of Ord. 18 of 1957, and was handed to the appellant at the time when he was stopped.

H Mr. Wentzel, who appears for the appellant, has argued the appeal on two main grounds. He has urged that the magistrate erred in holding that this notice purported to be a notice in terms of sec. 104 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 18 of 1957, and says that it was bad in law and invalid because, so it was urged, a traffic officer or inspector of licences has no power in...