Court name
High Court
Case name
S v Jossop
Media neutral citation
[2007] NAHC 174















Case No.: CR 93/2007


IN
THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA








In
the matter between:








THE
STATE








and








BONIFATIUS
JOSSOP












(HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO.:
674/2007)











CORAM: VAN
NIEKERK, J
et
MULLER, J











Delivered
on: 26 June 2007










REVIEW JUDGMENT






MULLER,
J.:





[1]
The accused was convicted of contravening s 35 (1) of the Act 19 of
1990 i.e. assault on a member of the police force. He was sentenced
to:







12 months imprisonment of
which 6 months o/c accused pays a fine of N$2000.00 by 30/09/06. The
rem 6 months wholly suspended for 5 years o/c accused does not within
the period of suspension commit a similar offence i.e. C/S 35 (1) Sec
1, 13 of 19 of 1990. (Assault on a member of the police).”







[2] I am satisfied that the
conviction is in accordance with justice but the sentence is not only
confusing, it is entirely incorrect. The accused was sentenced almost
a year ago and even if the conditions, if they could be understood,
had not been complied with. The 6 months effective sentence of
imprisonment has already expired. I had enquiries made to the clerk
of the court at the Magistrate’s Court, Karasburg and was informed
that the accused did not pay the fine, has served his prison sentence
and has been released. The correction of the sentence is therefore
academic. However, it must be corrected.







[3] From the sentence that the
magistrate imposed, I deduct that the intention was to impose a fine
of N$2000, or in default of payment, to impose a sentence of 6
months effective imprisonment. It was further intended that, in
addition, the accused be sentenced to a further 6 months
imprisonment, suspended for 5 years on condition he is not convicted
of committing an offence in contravention of s 35 (1) of Act 19 of
1990, within the period of suspension.







[4] Because of the late
submission of this review and the fact that the accused had already
been released, it is not in the interest of justice, nor of the
accused, to delay the matter any further by addressing a query to the
magistrate and thereafter give judgment only in respect of the
correction of the sentence. Consequently, I shall substitute the
sentence imposed by the magistrate with the correct sentence myself.







[5] The following orders are
made:







  1. The conviction is confirmed.



  2. The sentence imposed by the
    magistrate on 27 July 2006 is set aside and is substituted with the
    following sentence, effective from 27 July 2006:








The
accused is sentenced to pay a fine of N$2000 or, if in default to pay
such fine, 6 months imprisonment.







In addition the accused is
sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, fully suspended for a period of 5
years on condition that the accused is not convicted of committing an
offence in contravention of s 35 (1) of Act 19 of 1990, committed
within the period suspension.”









_____________



MULLER, J






I
concur








__________________



VAN NIEKERK, J