S v Msindo
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Bophuthatswana Supreme Court |
| Judge | Steenkamp R |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1980 |
| Citation | 1980 (4) SA 263 (B) |
| Hearing Date | 18 July 1980 |
Steenkamp R:
Dit is 'n hersieningsaak. Die beskuldigde is skuldig
Steenkamp R
bevind aan veediefstal van een bees en is tot een jaar gevangenisstraf gevonnis. Aangesien die beskuldigde drie vorige veroordelings van veediefstal het, het 'n Hersieningsregter die volgende navraag gedoen:
"In die lig van die beskuldigde se drie vorige veroordelings van veediefstal en ingenome die feit dat die beskuldigde voor hierdie oortreding twee jaar gevangenisstraf vir die diefstal van een bees gekry het, blyk 'n jaar gevangenisstraf vir hierdie oortreding 'n onvanpaste vonnis te wees."
B In sy antwoord het die magistraat saamgestem dat die vonnis onvanpas is en versoek dat die saak na hom terugverwys word ten einde hom in staat te stel om 'n gepaste vonnis op te lê. Die magistraat meld dat hy blykbaar mislei was deur die algemene jurisdiksie van die distrikshof wat 'n maksimum van een jaar gevangenisstraf is.
Dit is seker onnodig om te meld dat die regsbevoegdheid van C magistraatshowe wat gevangenisstraf betref, vir veediefstal of poging daartoe of ontvangs van gesteelde vee of aanhitsing daartoe, by 'n eerste veroordeling 'n maksimum van twee jaar is en by 'n tweede of latere veroordeling van genoemde misdade 'n maksimum van drie jaar is benewens die ander strawwe wat ook opgelê kan word. Sien art 13 van Wet 6 van 1975 (B).
D Indien die magistraat van mening was dat hy beperk was tot sy gewone regsbevoegdheid om 'n maksimum vonnis van een jaar gevangenisstraf op te lê, moes hy die saak na die streekhof ingevolge die bepalings van art 116 (1) van Wet 51 van 1977 verwys het ten einde laasgenoemde hof in staat te stel om 'n gepaste vonnis op te lê.
E Om 'n persoon wat alreeds drie vorige veroordelings van veediefstal het, en wat vir sy laaste oortreding wat gedurende 1973 begaan is, vir 'n tydperk van twee jaar gevangenisstraf gevonnis was, 'n vonnis van een jaar gevangenisstraf op te lê, is na my mening heeltemal onvanpas, veral indien in ag geneem word dat veediefstal in hierdie land as 'n baie ernstige F misdryf beskou word wat ook veelvuldig orals voorkom. Die maksimum straf van drie jaar gevangenisstraf wat die magistraat regtens bevoeg was om in hierdie saak op te lê, sou na my mening nog 'n baie genadige vonnis onder omstandighede gewees het.
Weens die algehele ontoereikendheid van die vonnis en in die lig van die magistraat se versoek dat die saak na hom terug verwys moet word ten einde G hom in staat te stel om 'n...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
2008 index
...310S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E) ........................................... 104, 210-211S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B) ........................................................... 340S v Mzatho 2007 (2) SACR 309 (T) ....................................................... 110-111S v N 20......
-
Attorney-General, Venda v Maraga
...in the law of criminal procedure and expressed the view that the review Court should possess such power. See, for example, S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B); S v Haasbroek; S v November (supra). In the latter judgment, Addleson J stated as follows at H 'The conclusion to which the Court is for......
-
Attorney-General, Venda v Maraga
...in the law of criminal procedure and expressed the view that the review Court should possess such power. See, for example, S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B); S v Haasbroek; S v November (supra). In the latter judgment, Addleson J stated as follows at H 'The conclusion to which the Court is for......
-
S v Nteleki
...v Mokoena 1984 (1) SA 267 (O): dictum at 269E–270A appliedS v Mqikela 2005 (2) SACR 397 (E): dictum at 399a–dappliedS v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B): dictum at 265F–G appliedS v Ndlovu 1998 (1) SACR 599 (W): dictum at 602a–cappliedS v November and Three Similar Cases 2006 (1) SACR 213 (C): re......
-
Attorney-General, Venda v Maraga
...in the law of criminal procedure and expressed the view that the review Court should possess such power. See, for example, S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B); S v Haasbroek; S v November (supra). In the latter judgment, Addleson J stated as follows at H 'The conclusion to which the Court is for......
-
Attorney-General, Venda v Maraga
...in the law of criminal procedure and expressed the view that the review Court should possess such power. See, for example, S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B); S v Haasbroek; S v November (supra). In the latter judgment, Addleson J stated as follows at H 'The conclusion to which the Court is for......
-
S v Nteleki
...v Mokoena 1984 (1) SA 267 (O): dictum at 269E–270A appliedS v Mqikela 2005 (2) SACR 397 (E): dictum at 399a–dappliedS v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B): dictum at 265F–G appliedS v Ndlovu 1998 (1) SACR 599 (W): dictum at 602a–cappliedS v November and Three Similar Cases 2006 (1) SACR 213 (C): re......
-
S v November and Three Similar Cases
...Froneman 1941 TPD 74; R v Fletcher 1941 EDL 255; R v Bornman 1960 (3) SA 878 (E); S v Haasbroek 1969 (1) SA 356 (E); and S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B). . . . H A suspended sentence consists of the penalty imposed and the conditions upon which the penalty is suspended which are part and par......
-
2008 index
...310S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E) ........................................... 104, 210-211S v Msindo 1980 (4) SA 263 (B) ........................................................... 340S v Mzatho 2007 (2) SACR 309 (T) ....................................................... 110-111S v N 20......