S v Pieters (CR 76 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 390 (5 August 2022)

Case Title:

The State

v

Andrew Pieters

Case No: CR 76/2022

Division of Court:

Main Division

Heard before:

Hon. Judge Shivute et

Hon. Judge January

Delivered on: 5 August 2022

Neutral citation: S v Pieters (CR 76/2022) [2022] NAHCMD 390 (5 August 2022)

The order:

1. The conviction is confirmed.

2. The sentence imposed is confirmed but amended to read as follows:

Accused is fined N$ 1000 or 12 months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years, on condition that accused is not convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice, committed during the period of suspension.

Reasons for order:

SHIVUTE J ( JANUARY J concurring):

[1] The accused was convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice, whereby he was sentenced as follows:

‘Fined N$ 1000 (One Thousand Namibian Dollars) or 12 (Twelve) months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 (Three) years, on condition that accused is not convicted of obstruction, committed during the period of suspension.’

[2] The case was submitted for automatic review in the ordinary course in terms of section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA).

[3] The review court had an issue with the second part of the sentence in that the condition of suspension of sentence reads as follows;

‘…on condition that accused is not convicted of obstruction, committed during the period of suspension.’

[4] A query was directed to the magistrate for him to explain what he meant with the condition of suspension of sentence and whether there is an offence called obstruction.

[5] The magistrate responded that it was a typing error and proposed that the condition of suspended sentence be corrected to read as follows;

‘Accused is fined N$ 1000 (One Thousand Namibian Dollars) or 12 (twelve) months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years, on condition that accused is not convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice, committed during the period of suspension.’

[6] CR Snyman defines the offence of defeating or obstructing the course of justice as the unlawful and intentional engaging in conduct which defeats or obstructs the course or administration of justice.¹ It is a single offence, not one involving two distinct alternative offences.²

[7] Taking the above into consideration, the magistrate erred by omitting ‘defeating or’ in the condition of the suspended sentence, thus the sentence must be amended.

[8] In the result, it is ordered:

1. The conviction is confirmed.

2. The sentence imposed is confirmed but amended to read as follows:

Accused is fined N$ 1000 or 12 months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years, on condition that accused is not convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice, committed during the period of suspension.

N N SHIVUTE

Judge

H C JANUARY

Judge