S v Hughes

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Claassen J and Bekker J
• Judgment Date: 31 January 1964
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 03 January 1964
• Citation: 1964 (2) SA 124 (T)

Bekker, J.:

The appellant in this case is a business man 48 years of age. He pleaded 'guilty' to a charge of driving a motor vehicle in F Rosettenville Street, Johannesburg, while under the influence of liquor.

In 1951 - more than ten years ago - the appellant was convicted of a similar offence.

The offence took place on the 30th July, 1963, at about 10.15 p.m. The street was fairly wide and very quiet at that time.

G A traffic inspector followed the appellant's vehicle for about 200 yards. He first noticed the appellant's vehicle on its incorrect side of the street but it was slowly moving to its correct side. It then again swerved over to the incorrect side. A car approaching from the opposite side hooted loudly and had to move over to its extreme left in order to avoid appellant's vehicle. This car then stopped after passing the appellant's vehicle. After this the appellant moved over again to his H correct side and of his own accord stopped his vehicle with its nose pointing to the kerb at an angle. When the inspector came to him he was lying over the steering wheel as if asleep and could not be woken up.

The appellant was sentenced to 600 hours' periodical imprisonment and his driver's licence was suspended for 12 months.

The appellant gave evidence in mitigation of sentence. He is a contractor and executes certain contracts on - inter alia - Government

Bekker J

buildings. He employs five Europeans, and six non-Europeans. He is married, has a family and has also to support two grandchildren. He has no regular working time he said, but has to work 'right round the A clock'. Sometimes he also works on Saturdays and Sundays. Eighteen months ago he had a slight thrombosis. He said he was not a regular drinker and since the incident: 'I have not drunk any liquor, I have had a very serious mental shock and I don't think I will drink again'. He sometimes has to make long trips and he has engaged a driver to drive his motor vehicle for him.

An appeal was noted and argued against the severity of the sentence. B Only two points in the notice of appeal need be considered.

'That the magistrate did not properly consider all the evidence led in mitigation in determining the sentence of imprisonment on accused especially in view of the fact that he found that the accused was a first offender.

The magistrate incorrectly found that it was compulsory that the accused's licence be suspended for 12 months in terms of sec. 144...