S v Mareda and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Lukoto, J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2003
• Docket Number: C153/2003
• Court: Venda High Court
• Hearing Date: 30 April 2003
• Citation: 2003 JDR 0715 (V)

Lukoto J:

This matter comes before me by way of an automatic review.

Four accused initially faced a charge of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. Before the charge was put to them, the public prosecutor withdrew the charge against the then accused No. 1. The then accused no. 3 pleaded not guilty to the charge and his trial was then separated from that of the remaining two accused.

2003 JDR 0715 p2

Lukoto J

The charge sheet alleged that upon or about 23rd January 2003 and at or near Itsani in the district of Thohoyandou the accused unlawfully and with intent to steal, break open and enter the house of Vele Munyai and did then and there wrongfully and intentionally steal the following items, to wit Samsung video machine valued at R3000-00, the property or in the lawful possession of Vele Munyai.

Both accused chose to conduct their own defence. They pleaded guilty. They were convicted and sentenced to a fine of R5000-00 (five thousand rand) or one(I) year imprisonment each.

After receiving the matter, I directed an enquiry to the learned magistrate in which I raised the following issues:

1.

Form J4 does not reflect the magistrate's serial number.

2.

Form J4 also indicates that the accused is Mphaphuli Ofhani, which is incorrect. It should indicate MODADO MAREDA AND MATHODE MASHUDU GODFREY.

3.

Both accused should have been invited to address Court on sentence.

2003 JDR 0715 p3

Lukoto J

4.

Did the learned magistrate consider obtaining a pre-sentence report from a probation officer as both accused were youthful first offenders?

5.

Was the learned magistrate aware of recent South African case law emphasizing the necessity for the sentencing court to act dynamically in obtaining full details of the personality and circumstances of young offenders prior to the imposition of sentence and the importance of obtaining full details of the personality and circumstances of young offenders prior to the imposition of sentence and the importance of obtaining a pre-sentence report for this purpose as held in S vs VAN ROOYEN 2002 (1) SACR 608 (CPD)?

The learned magistrate replied to my enquiry and I quote his reply verbatim:

"1.

magistrate's serial number is 9/03.

2.

the accused's name is Modado Mareda and another.

3.

accused only mitigated on sentence.

4.

indeed a pre-sentence report was not obtained but the Court also considers the prevalence and serious (sic) of the offence".

2003 JDR 0715...