S v Ramadzanga

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Le Roux CJ and Van Der Spuy AJ
• Judgment Date: 13 July 1987
• Citation: 1988 (2) SA 816 (V)
• Hearing Date: 13 July 1987
• Court: Venda Supreme Court

Le Roux CJ:

The accused is a male juvenile whose age is given in the charge sheet as 16 years. He was charged with three counts of D housebreaking with intent to steal and theft and a fourth count of theft only. He pleaded guilty to three counts, two involving housebreaking and the theft count, and not guilty on the one count of housebreaking. The magistrate questioned him in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 on his pleas of guilty and, correctly in my view, convicted him on those three counts. The trial proceeded on his E plea of not guilty and, after the State had led the evidence of the complainant and she had been cross-examined by the accused, it closed its case. The accused elected not to testify after his rights were explained to him and was thereafter duly found guilty. It turned out that the accused had no previous convictions and, after hearing his F address in mitigation, the magistrate took all four counts together for purposes of sentence and imposed a term of four months' imprisonment on the accused.

When the matter came up for automatic review, I asked the magistrate whether he had considered the advisability of obtaining a pre-sentence report from a welfare officer with the object of establishing the home G background of the accused. I also requested him to inform me whether a parent or guardian was present during the trial. The magistrate replied that he had erred in trying the case in that he had considered the accused to be over 21 years and had failed to check the charge sheet when trying the case. (I find this statement difficult to accept as the magistrate noted on the record a statement by the accused to the H following effect:

'I am an orphan. I am a herdboy. I am the only person to assist my grandmother. I am 16 years of age. I am not employed. I am not attending school because I don't have money to buy books.')

What does seem clear, however, is that the magistrate did not deal with the accused as a juvenile offender. He now suggests that the I conviction and sentence should be set aside on this ground.

The Attorney-General has expressed the view that, as the age of the accused was not an element of the crime, the convictions would not be vitiated by a failure to determine the age in terms of s 337. He also gave it as his opinion that, although s 74 of the Act makes provision for the attendance of a parent or guardian of a juvenile under 18 years J at the trial,

Le Roux...