Cape Town - Two men have been released from prison after the Western Cape High Court set aside their convictions and sentences as Acting Judge Nontuthuzelo Ralarala said she was “not satisfied that the proceedings were in accordance with justice”.
The men – Royston Bergman and Mpho Matume – both pleaded guilty to offences in the Cape Town and Athlone magistrate’s courts respectively.
Bergman was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment while Matume was sentenced to 18 months behind bars.
They were both unrepresented and in both cases pleaded guilty to the charges of robbery and contravention of the National Road Traffic Act, respectively.
“When both matters came before me, I was not satisfied that the proceedings were in accordance with justice.
“Consequently, in both matters the convictions and the sentences were set aside. I then ordered the immediate release of both accused. In S v Bergman, I directed certain questions to the magistrate.
“In light of the similar manner in which the presiding magistrates dealt with these matters, I decided to consider them together. This court is essentially enjoined to consider whether the proceedings before the respective magistrates appear to be in accordance with justice and equity,” said Ralarala.
According to court documents Bergman was arrested for robbery of a cellphone after he had grabbed the phone from the complainant. A scuffle ensued, in which a security guard intervened and the cellphone was returned to the complainant.
“A close examination of the plea proceedings reveals that the questioning did not establish all the elements of the offence of robbery. Clearly, the elements of unlawfulness and intention were not covered by the admissions made by the accused,” said Ralarala.
Ralarala raised the question to the magistrate and in the court a quo’s response, the magistrate conceded “it was a regrettable oversight on my part”.
Matume was arrested along Goven Mbeki road in a roadblock where his blood concentration showed he had consumed alcohol over the legal limit.
In his plea, Matume submitted “that he had no knowledge that driving a motor vehicle on a public road while the alcohol content in his blood stream was not less 0.05 gram per 100ml was a criminal offence”.
“What I thought your Worship, one gets arrested when you drive and busy drinking with a beer in your hand, Your Worship,” was Matume’s reason.
The prosecutor responded: “Ignorance of the law is not a defence, Your Worship... (Even) though he did not know, it is still an offence and he ought to have known, Your Worship.”
In the court record, the prosecutor responded: “Ignorance of the law is not a defence, Your Worship…
“(Even) though he did not know, it is still an offence and he ought to have known, Your Worship.”
Judge Ralarala said: “A conviction should not have followed in the circumstances that played out at the end of the questioning, instead more questions from the magistrate should have followed.
This would be expected if the magistrate had full appreciation of the definition and the elements of the particular offence. This is a clear indication that particular attention need to be given to the elements of the specific offences when magistrates consider plea proceedings, especially where undefended accused persons are involved.”
Cape Times