S v Manale

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Kgomo J
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2000
• Citation: 2000 (2) SACR 666 (NC)
• Hearing Date: 19 September 2000
• Court: Northern Cape Division

Kgomo J:

A.Introduction

1.

I ruled earlier, during the sentencing phase, that the regional magistrate had sufficiently apprised the accused of the seriousness of the charges he faced and the consequences that might result from a conviction. I declared myself satisfied that the conviction was in accordance with the law and directed that the case be accordingly disposed of. I reserved the reasons for my ruling, These are the reasons. F

2.

The accused was convicted by a regional magistrate of five counts of rape and one charge of the possession of an unlicensed firearm in contravention of the Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969. G

3.

The regional magistrate stopped the proceedings because he was of the view that the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the accused would exceed his punitive jurisdiction. He consequently invoked the provisions of s 52(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and committed the accused to this Court for sentence. H

4.

When the accused made his first appearance in the regional court his rights concerning the entitlements to legal representation and legal aid funding, if he was improvident, were appropriately explained to him. He elected to be legally represented. The Legal Aid Board appointed a local attorney, Mr H Harrison, to I conduct his defence. On 25 August 1999 several months before the trial resumed the accused terminated the mandate of his attorney. The record reflects what transpired:

'Mnr Harrison deel hof mee dat beskuldigde sy mandaat beëindig het. Beskuldigde bevestig. Sal eie verdediging waarneem. Uitgestel J

Kgomo J

A 7 September 1999 vir verhoor. (Klaagster se moeder word by hof siek. Klaagster saam na hospitaal.) Beskuldigde in hegtenis.'

B. Objections raised by defence in High Court

1.

Before the sentencing process commenced before me Mr Muhlohlonyi persisted in only two of several B points raised in limine in his heads of argument which he submitted vitiated the trial and conviction of the accused. The first of these objections was that the regional magistrate defaulted in informing the accused of the gravity of the offence and that he stares a possible sentence of life imprisonment in the face. The second point in limine was that the regional magistrate misdirected himself in convicting the accused of C multiple rapes - five in all. He contended that there was in fact only one sexual encounter.

Mrs Hayes, counsel for the State, has strenuously opposed the application and has supported the argument with various excerpts from the record.

2.

D When the trial resumed much later (on 21 December 1999) the accused appeared before another regional magistrate. The record reads:

'Aanklaer: Beskuldigde het aangedui op 'n vorige geleentheid dat hy sy eie saak sal behartig. Die beskuldigde het E vanoggend aangedui na ek met hom gepraat het, dat hy steeds wil voortgaan. Met u verlof stel ek dan die klagte. . . .

Hof: Mnr Monale, voordat ek u nou gaan vra wat u nou op die aanklagte pleit, wil ek net by u duidelikheid hê. Hy het nou reeds aangedui dat u u eie verdediging sal behartig, is dit korrek so?

Beskuldigde: Ja, ek het gesê ek sal my eie verdediging behartig.

Hof: Ek wil u nou net daarop wys, sou u skuldig bevind word op die klagte, dan moet u tot lewenslange gevangenisstraf gevonnis word en dit is 'n swaar vonnis. So, in die lig daarvan wil ek net by u vasstel, daar is nie 'n probleem as u u eie verdediging wil behartig nie, maar in die lig van dit wat ek u meegedeel het, kan u die keuse uitoefen of u nie wil aansoek doen vir regshulp of 'n ander prokureur nie.

Beskuldigde: My besluit om my eie verdediging te behartig.

Hof: U volstaan daarby?

Beskuldigde: Ek volstaan daarby.

Hof: Goed, daar is nie 'n probleem daarby nie, solank u dit net verstaan. Wat pleit u op aanklag 1?'

H (My emphasis.)

3.

A principle has evolved over the years to the effect that where a case is sufficiently complicated and could turn out to be materially prejudicial to an accused he/she ought to be apprised of the gravity of the charge I and the possible dire consequences of a conviction. The arraignment of the accused on five episodes of rape on the same woman during the same night at gun-point falls unquestionably within the purview of this principle. Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, provides that an accused convicted of the multiple rape on the same woman qualifies to be sentenced to life imprisonment unless J substantial and compelling circumstances as contemplated in s 51(3)(a) of

Kgomo J

the same Act, are found to exist. In S v Mbambo 1999 (2) SACR 421 (W) at 426b-d Goldstein J stated: A

'It is quite clear that where an...