S v Kayaya

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ebrahim J
• Judgment Date: 27 August 2003
• Docket Number: CA & R 30/03
• Court: Ciskei High Court
• Hearing Date: 27 August 2003
• Citation: 2003 JDR 0490 (CkH)

Ebrahim J:

1.

This matter came on automatic review pursuant to the provisions of s 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 ("the CPA").

2.

The accused was convicted of the offence of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and sentenced to a fine of R1 000.00, alternatively six months imprisonment, of which half was conditionally suspended for a period of five years.

3.

The following queries were addressed to the magistrate:

'1.

The original record if the trial proceedings, which is handwritten and in a cursive style of handwriting, has been defaced. Someone has written every word again, using block

2003 JDR 0490 p2

Ebrahim J

letters, above the original cursive handwriting. Who is responsible for this and why was the original record tampered with in this manner?

2.

Why has the magistrate submitted the proceedings for review without commenting on this obvious irregularity?

3.

The State failed to submit any medical evidence in respect of the complainant's injuries, Why did the magistrate not enquire into the State's failure to do so?

4.

The sentence appears to be exceptionally lenient in relation to the seriousness of the offence. Why does the magistrate consider the sentence to be appropriate?

5.

What was the purpose of imposing a fine when the accused was unemployed and had no individual source of income?'

4.

The magistrate replied as follows:

'AD PARA 1: The Magistrate used block letters above the cursive handwriting for the benefit of the typist who could not read the cursive writing.

AD PARA 2: It was an oversight on the part of the Magistrate not to advise the Honourable Judge of that fact, which is regretted.

AD PARA 3: The court had an opportunity of looking at the injuries sustained by the complainant, be that as it may the court will in future enquire the Prosecutor why he is not submitting the Medical Report.

AD PARA 4: Not belittling the seriousness of the offence, The court took into consideration the fact that the accused is a first offender and in mitigation the court observed some indications of remorsefulness.

AD PARA 5: The court having taken all relevant facts Into consideration in this regard the court emphasized the nature of the offence and its prevailance [sic]. The court took Judicial notice of the fact that scholars in this area commit serious crimes and was trying to send out a message to would be scholar offenders that they will get some kind of...