Mukwevho v S (A4. A4. 52/0. 9REPORTABLEIn. EMMANUEL. Appellantand. THE. STATE. The appellant was arraigned before the Regional. Soweto. 5. 1 of 1. Possession of a firearm (read with. Section 5. 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. In. that on or about 0. Kempton Park in the. Regional Division of Gauteng, the accused did unlawfully have. Parabellum Calibre Norinco Model 2. C Semi- automatic without. Act. to possess that firearm. Count two (the. count of unlawful possession of ammunition) reads as follows: POSSESSION OF. Section 9. 0 read with Sections 1, 1. Section 1. 21. read with Schedule 4 and Section 1. Firearms Control Act. No. 6. 0 of 2. 00. Section 2. 50 of the Criminal. Procedure Act, No. Possession of ammunition (read with. Section 5. 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. In. that on or about 0. Kempton Park in the. Regional Division of Gauteng, the accused did unlawfully have. The appellant was. January 2. 00. 9. In terms of section 5. Criminal Law Amendment Act, No 1. II of Schedule 2 thereof, a first offender (as the. On the same day as conviction, the learned. He. ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The effective sentence is. It may be appropriate to mention at this stage. Liste des Poisson > Liste Compl. 2016 20:01 Aborichthys elongatus (Hora, 1921), Balitorid Home > ABS Registered Begonias (A - F) ABS Registered Begonias (A - F) These listings have been. Pastebin PRO Accounts AUTUMN SPECIAL! For a limited time only get 40% discount on a LIFETIME PRO account! Mons (Belgium) trial - 1961 Back in the sixties the enduro wasn't a famous sport in Belgium, but trial was. There were several great trial-events in Belgium: one was. The Lehigh Civil and Environmental Engineering Digital Library will encompass selected publications of the department, including Fritz Laboratory. ClasificadosOnline.com, Puerto Rico's cars (autos) and motorcycles for sale, Just 3 clicks, Facil de buscar carros, motoras, botes, autos. He is an actor and director. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. In the appeal between: EMMANUEL MUKWEVHO Appellant. Year Our History 1905 Yeung Ching School started as a private school for Cantonese children. Its medium of instruction was Chinese. 1907 Mr Song Mulin was the Principal. 21 Mart, 1969; Erdebil), . His counsel applied for a discharge in terms. Criminal Procedure Act, No. This application was dismissed. The appellant was 2. The appellant was. He was searched by Tshabalala. In the. firearm were four rounds of ammunition. Having. confiscated the. Constable Tshabalala put the. SAP 1. 3” (the register of items seized by the police. The “SAP 1. 3”. number of the entry. The forensic bag’s number was written in his diary. He says. this number was not recorded. SAP 1. 3). The. docket has no record of the seal number. The serial number of the firearm was recorded by. SAP. 1. 4” and his diary. No evidence was. either the “SAP 1. SAP 1. 4”. are or were. The “SAP 1. 3” is common knowledge to this. Constable Tshabalala describes the firearm as a “Lorinco”. Norinco”. This difference, as will appear more. The sealed forensic. FSE3. 40. 21. 8. Constable Majela refreshed his memory from his. The serial number of the firearm was recorded. He took the sealed bag to the forensics. Majela says that the seal number of the. SAP 1. 3”. contrary to the evidence of Tshabalala). She confirms that she opened this sealed bag, that it contained. She. described the firearm as a “9 mm Parabellum Calibre Lorinco 2. C semi- automatic pistol”. The State then closed its. Thereafter, he closed his case without. In S. Botha J, with Du Plessis J concurring, held, when referring to the. Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. Die. woorde dra na my mening die betekenis oor die feite wat aanwesig moet. In. other words, in order to attract the prescribed minimum sentence, all. In this case, questions arise not only whether the appellant. Not even copies thereof. In the absence. of an acceptable explanation for the unavailability of the. This is the so- called “best evidence” rule. This rule. has not escaped criticism as a relic from the Dark Ages, before. Nevertheless, in my opinion, in the absence of a suitable explanation. Tshabalala and Majela’s evidence of what was recorded. He also disallowed the handing. Constable Majela’s statement. In my opinion. magistrate erred in both respects. Then there is the issue that the. Norinco”. evidence was that it was a “Lorinco” – and these. The. State is bound by the charge and a variance between what is alleged. We were confronted with a situation in which the. The complainant’s evidence correlated. The police evidence did not. There. was no identification of the suspects at the scene. We felt obliged to intervene. I accept that there is a qualitative. I. accept that one cannot be comfortable with a conclusion that a. Lorinco” is “entirely. Norinco”. Nevertheless, one cannot escape a sense of. Counsel for. inexperienced. We all have our bad days. The police. and prosecutors also work. Nevertheless, however exasperated we may be. Constitution (section 3. We cannot put. persons in gaol without requiring a high standard of the necessary. Put differently. there has to have been sufficient quantum. In view. of the fact that counsel for the defence, from the earliest. It was not in accordance with. I should also record that, in my opinion. This compulsory minimum sentence underlines. Not. appellant denied a fair opportunity to test these aspects but the. This principle was. Oberholzer. 7and. S v De Blom. 8. This blameworthy. There appears to have been no reported case directly in point. Firearms Control Act, No. In S. v Tshwape and Another. De. J, as he then was, said as follows: Without. Although. Botha and Du Plessis JJ were not, in the Nziyane. Guided by the Nziyane. I am in any event bound, I come to this conclusion. With the Tshwape. Nevertheless, the issue. Ordinarily, the inference can. In the present case. Section. 2. 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides as follows: If. Chapter does not prove the commission. In S. Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) had to deal with the. General Law Amendment Act, No. Criminal Procedure Act. The court then. referred to various cases in which this principle had been affirmed. Justifying the court’s view that there had been no prejudice. Nicholas AJA went on to say: It. In S. the SCA reaffirmed the principle of prejudice being decisive and, as. Mwali. that, in determining whether there had been any prejudice by either. State or the court failing pertinently to draw attention. The SCA observed that the accused had been represented by senior and. It. is difficult to conceive, even as after having heard argument, how. Criminal Procedure. Act. The SCA also observed that: Any. Of. course, the fact that an accused person enjoyed the benefit of legal. That. now seems to be settled law. On the other hand. I do not think it can. SCA intended this to. In the present case, the prosecutor. The defence was conducted accordingly. The law reports are replete with examples. Criminal Law Amendment Act, on. It is not difficult. Constitution) if he had been made aware. State may have sought and that, by. In my. opinion, it will be desirable, especially. State seeks a. conviction on a charge of possession of a particular type or genus. The following. of this court: The. The. following verdict is substituted for that of the court. DATED. AT JOHANNESBURG THIS 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2. N. P. Mulaudzi. Counsel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |