S v Shabangu
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Jansen JA, Trollip JA and Viljoen AJA |
Judgment Date | 11 May 1976 |
Citation | 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) |
Court | Appellate Division |
Jansen, J.A.:
An order allowing this appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence has been issued. Here follow the reasons.
The appellant (together with another) was convicted in the magistrate's court, Roodepoort, of dealing in dagga in contravention of sec. 2 (a) of Act 41 of 1971, The quantity involved was substantial (1,45 kilograms); and he
Jansen JA
had some four years before been convicted for an offence of a similar nature; for which a sentence of a fine of R500 or 500 days' imprisonment, as also an additional 18 months' imprisonment, had been imposed. He was consequently sentenced A to seven years' imprisonment in respect of the present conviction. An appeal against conviction and sentence to the Transvaal Provincial Division failed; he now pursues the matter further by leave of this Court in respect of conviction only.
The only contention raised on behalf of the appeal is (as in the Court a quo) that the court, by refusing a postponement of the trial, committed an irregularity justifying the setting B aside of the conviction, and, consequently, the sentence.
The appellant was arrested on 19 July 1974 and with the co-accused appeared in court on 22 July 1974, when he was granted bail and the case remanded for trial to 7 August 1974. He was apparently released on 29 July 1974. In respect of the resumption on 7 August 1974 the magistrate's note reads:
C 'Uitgestel tot 16.8.74 vir verhoor. Beskuldigde 2 (appellant) borg verleng. Beskuldigde I borg vasgestel, in hegtenis. Staatsaanklaer deel mee op versoek van verdediging. Prokureur afwesig (Hoffmann). Geen verskoning by hof aangebied. Finaal.'
On 16 August 1974 the trial proceeded, but only after an D attempt to obtain a further postponement had failed. As it is the decision of the court to proceed with the trial which forms the basis of the appellant's appeal, it is necessary to quote the record as to what happened:
'Mnr. Ackerman: Mag dit u behaag. Namens Daniel Shabangu is ek vanoggend gevra vir uitstel.
Hof: E U is vanoggend genader.
Mnr. Ackerman: Ja.
Hof: Ek sien dear was 'n uitstel - u naam is nie op rekord nie - die prokureur is afwesig - Mnr. Hoffmann.
Mnr. Ackerman: Dit is 'n ander prokureur.
Staatsaanklaer spreek toe: Edelagbare, mag ek net noem 'n prokureur het geskakel vanoggend. Ek het vir hom gesê dat saak F vir verhoor neergesit is vandag. Daar kan 'n aansoek gedoen word by hof vir 'n uitstel.
Hof aan beskuldigde: Hoekom het jy so laat 'n prokureur gekry?
Beskuldigde 2: Ek het lankal 'n prokureur gaan sien te Johannesburg Edelagbare.
Hof: Wie was die prokureur?
Beskuldigde 2: Mnr. Lowenberg.
Hof: En toe kon hy nie jou saak vat nie, is dit reg?
Beskuldigde...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...v Blooms 1966 (4) SA 417 (C) at 420F; S v Mkhize 1978 (3) SA 1065 (T) at 1066G; S v Seheri 1964 (1) SA 29 (A) at 35H-36E; S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F-H. For the same reason it has been held that there is a duty on the presiding judicial officer to inform an accused person H of ......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...v Blooms 1966 (4) SA 417 (C) at 420F; S v Mkhize 1978 (3) SA 1065 (T) at 1066G; S v Seheri 1964 (1) SA 29 (A) at 35H-36E; S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F-H. For the same D reason it has been held that there is a duty on the presiding judicial officer to inform an accused person of ......
-
S v Mabaso and Another
...the witness's statements at the preparatory examination inadmissible when he subsequently became an accused. See also S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F, where Jansen JA 'The case against the appellant on the merits certainly appears to be formidable and to have fully justified the co......
-
S v Davids; S v Dladla
...and Another v Nel NO and Another 1971 (3) SA 217 (E) (at 221H); S v Nqula 1974 (1) SA 801 (E) (at 807D - F); and S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) (at 558F). Representation, or the chance to arrange for some, had not been allowed in the trials that came to grief on these occasions. A case of......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...v Blooms 1966 (4) SA 417 (C) at 420F; S v Mkhize 1978 (3) SA 1065 (T) at 1066G; S v Seheri 1964 (1) SA 29 (A) at 35H-36E; S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F-H. For the same reason it has been held that there is a duty on the presiding judicial officer to inform an accused person H of ......
-
S v Rudman and Another; S v Mthwana
...v Blooms 1966 (4) SA 417 (C) at 420F; S v Mkhize 1978 (3) SA 1065 (T) at 1066G; S v Seheri 1964 (1) SA 29 (A) at 35H-36E; S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F-H. For the same D reason it has been held that there is a duty on the presiding judicial officer to inform an accused person of ......
-
S v Mabaso and Another
...the witness's statements at the preparatory examination inadmissible when he subsequently became an accused. See also S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) at 558F, where Jansen JA 'The case against the appellant on the merits certainly appears to be formidable and to have fully justified the co......
-
S v Davids; S v Dladla
...and Another v Nel NO and Another 1971 (3) SA 217 (E) (at 221H); S v Nqula 1974 (1) SA 801 (E) (at 807D - F); and S v Shabangu 1976 (3) SA 555 (A) (at 558F). Representation, or the chance to arrange for some, had not been allowed in the trials that came to grief on these occasions. A case of......