S v N

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Dhlodhlo J and Norman AJ
• Judgment Date: 03 March 2003
• Docket Number: A505/2002
• Court: Ciskei High Court
• Hearing Date: 03 March 2003
• Citation: 2005 (1) SACR 201 (CkH)

Dhlodhlo J:

The accused, a 16-year-old male youth who elected to conduct his own defence, pleaded guilty to a charge of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. He was questioned by the magistrate in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and was correctly found guilty as charged on 9 September 2002. The accused was remanded into the I custody of his guardian to 4 November 2002 for a probation officer's report. The record of the proceedings does not show who suggested that a probation officer compile a report on the accused. The case was later postponed on several occasions for a probation officer's report. J

Dhlodhlo J

On 7 November the public prosecutor handed in the report. A According to the record the contents of the report were brought to the attention of the accused who had no objection to its handing in without calling the probation officer, 'as he is also aware of the report as he was informed about it in his consultation with him'.

The accused admitted a previous conviction of housebreaking with B intent to steal and theft of 4 January 2001, for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of R1 000 or, in default of payment, to undergo five months' imprisonment, which was conditionally suspended for three years. The magistrate sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for 18 months and ordered that the suspended sentence of 4 January 2001 be put into operation. C

In her report dated 6 December 2002, probation officer B N Ntshona stated, among others, that:

'The young person concerned is a school drop-out and statistically school drop-outs are likely to involve themselves in acts of this nature because their behaviour is not monitored and shaped to D the acceptable one. Further they are loitering in the streets with nothing to do.'

In para 9 of the report the probation officer stated that, although the accused had previously been convicted, she was of opinion that his behaviour could be controlled if he were to be placed under correctional supervision. She finally recommended that the youth be E sentenced to correctional supervision.

The reviewing Judge asked the magistrate whether he did not deem it necessary to call the probation officer to testify, for her to substantiate her recommendation and to answer questions, if any. In his response, the magistrate stated that the contents of the report were F briefly explained to the accused and that it was further explained that if...