CASE NO. CR 23/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
THE STATE
versus

Delivered on:        	15 March 2011

REVIEW JUDGMENT

[3]     The learned magistrate then proceeded to sentence the accused after
the latter and the prosecutor were afforded the opportunity each to address
the court in mitigation and in aggravation of the sentence respectively. The
following sentence was meted out.

Count 2:     N$800.00 or 4 months imprisonment."
The sentence imposed is not subject to automatic review in terms of section 302 of the CPA if the fines were paid by the accused. However, it would appear that the accused did not pay the fines and as a result, the matter has to be submitted for automatic review.

[4] When the record of proceedings was placed before me for review, I was not satisfied with the magistrate returning a verdict of "guilty as charged on count 1 and the manner how the record was bound. I referred the record back to the learned magistrate and requested reasons for the verdict "guilty as charged" when the offence against the accused is one of reckless or negligent driving. Also for the magistrate to explain why she allowed a record which was not properly bound to be forwarded to the High Court for review.

[6] That being the case, I am satisfied that, the slight oversight on the part of the magistrate did not cause an injustice to the accused person. In any event, the accused knew that his answers to questions put to him by the magistrate in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the CPA, established negligence on his part.

[7]     In the result the following order is made:
1.	The verdict of "guilty as charged" in count 1 is set aside and substituted for the verdict: guilty of negligent driving.
2.	The sentence in count 1 is in order and is confirmed.
The conviction and sentence in count 2 are in order and confirmed.

UNENGU, AJ

I agree

SIBOLEKA, J