S v Mbambo

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Goldstein J
• Judgment Date: 20 August 1999
• Citation: 1999 (2) SACR 421 (W)
• Hearing Date: 06 August 1999
• Counsel: H M Ackermann for the accused B Smith for the State
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Goldstein J:

The accused was convicted in a regional court of the rape of a girl of 9 years of age committed on 27 September 1998. He had pleaded not guilty, and after having convicted him the learned regional magistrate committed him to this Court for sentence in terms of the provisions of s 52(1)(b) of the Criminal Law D Amendment Act 105 of 1997 ('the Act'). Unless substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a lesser sentence are found to exist, the Act provides for a minimum sentence of life imprisonment in the present case. Section 52(3) of the Act regulates these proceedings and reads as follows: E

'(3)(a) Where an accused is committed under ss (1)(b) for sentence by a High Court, the record of the proceedings in the regional court shall upon proof thereof in the High Court be received by the High Court and form part of the record of that Court.

(b) The High Court shall, after considering the record of the proceedings in the regional court, F sentence the accused, and the judgment of the regional court shall stand for this purpose and be sufficient for the High Court to pass sentence as contemplated in s 51: Provided that if the Judge is of the opinion that the proceedings are not in accordance with justice or that doubt exists whether the proceedings are in accordance with justice, he or she shall, without senten-cing the accused, obtain from the regional magistrate who presided at the trial a statement setting forth his or her reasons for convicting the accused. G

(c) If a Judge acts under the proviso to para (b), he or she shall inform the accused accordingly and postpone the case for judgment, and, if the accused is in custody, the Judge may make such order with regard to the detention or release of the accused as he or she may deem fit.

(d) The Court in question may at any sitting thereof hear any evidence and for that purpose summon H any person to appear to give evidence or to produce any document or other article.

(e) Such Court, whether or not it has heard evidence and after it has obtained and considered a statement referred to in para (b) may -

(i)

confirm the conviction and thereupon impose a sentence as contemplated in s 51; I

(ii)

alter the conviction to a conviction of another offence referred to in Schedule 2 and thereupon impose a sentence as contemplated in s 51;

(iii)

alter the conviction to a conviction of an offence other than an offence referred to in Schedule 2 and thereupon impose the sentence the Court may deem fit;

(iv)

set aside the conviction; J

Goldstein J

(v)

remit the case to the regional court with instruction to deal with any matter in such manner as the High Court may deem fit; or A

(vi)

make any such order in regard to any matter or thing connected with such person or the proceedings in regard to such person as the High Court deems likely to promote the ends of justice.'

The accused was undefended in the regional court. Before me he is represented B by counsel, with the assistance of the Legal Aid Board, and the question which arises is whether the proceedings in the regional court where no such representation obtained were 'in accordance with justice' in terms of the proviso to s 52(3)(b).

It appears that the accused first appeared before a district court at Westonaria on 1 October 1998. The record of what occurred on that day reads as follows in regard to the question of representation: C

'Reg op bystand. Regshulp.

Verstaan.

Het met familie gepraat - kom nie terug na my nie. D

Sal my eie saak behartig.'

On 10 November 1998 the accused appeared before the regional court magistrate who was eventually to preside over his trial and convict him. The record insofar as it is relevant reads as follows:

'Regte: Act (clearly a misprint for "Art") 73/Regshulp verduidelik. E

Verkies eie verdediging.'

The learned regional magistrate has in response to my query explained the extract quoted from the record in the following terms:

'Die verduideliking "Regte art 73/Regshulp verduidelik" beteken eerstens dat die hof die bepalings F van art 73(2) van die Strafproseswet, 1977 (Wet 51 van 1977) verduidelik het, naamlik dat hy deur 'n regsverteenwoordiger van sy keuse by die verhoor verteenwoordig mag word; tweedens, die verwysing na "Regshulp" beteken dat die hof ook aan hom verduidelik het dat indien hy nie oor die nodige fondse beskik nie, hy aansoek by die Regshulpraad mag doen vir die aanstelling van 'n regsverteenwoordiger op Staatskoste. G

Die beskuldigde het hierna aangedui dat hy verkies om sy verdediging self te behartig.'

The record reflects what occurred when the matter eventually commenced before the regional court: H

'Aanklaer: Die beskuldigde het verkies om sy eie verdediging te behartig nadat sy regsverteenwoordiging en regshulp aan hom voorgehou is.

Hof: Net 'n oomblik, mnr Jansen, ek dink die beskuldigde wil iets onder die hof se aandag bring. Laat ons net hoor wat dit is?

Beskuldigde: Op 24 Desember toe ek hier was, die eerste speurder wat vir my gearresteer het, het nog 'n ander een gestuur om my vingerafdrukke te kom afneem. Dit kan ek nie verstaan nie. I

Hof: Ja dit kan so wees, meneer, maar op die huidige is dit irrelevant. Ek stel voor u luister aandagtig na die verrigtinge.

Gaan voort mnr die aanklaer.

Aanklaer: Die beskuldigde het verkies om sy eie verdediging waar te neem.' J

Goldstein J

It is clear from the aforegoing that the accused was never informed that he was A charged with a crime involving a life sentence and also that he was at no stage encouraged to obtain legal representation.

The accused gave evidence before me. He deposed that he was unaware in the district and regional courts of the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment; he was aware of sentences for rape of six years and 10 years and of the seriousness B of that...