CASE NO.: CR 106/2008
THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
(HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO.:
on: 01 October 2008
accused pleaded guilty to the charge of arson and after applying s
112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act No 51 of 1977 (CPA) the
accused was convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment of
which 8 months were conditionally suspended for 3 years.
addressed the following queries to the magistrate on 14 July 2008:
what basis was the magistrate satisfied in terms of s 112(1)(b) of
the CPA that the accused admitted all the elements of the offence of
arson, considering the following:
stated that he was forced to plead guilty;
did not admit that he knew that he would cause damage to the
complainant’s property by setting fire to it; and
provided a defence when he asked whether he knew his action was
wrong, he did not admit it.
2. Why was
the review submitted more than five months after the accused had been
 On 25 September 2008 I
received the following response from the magistrate:
magistrate’s answer to the Honourable Review Judgethat the
whole proceeding is not in order. I am humbly requesting the
proceedings to be set aside.
review was submitted late as we had to printer at the office. We are
depending getting help from other office to print our cases. That was
the main reason.”
agree with the magistrate that the accused’s conviction and
sentence should be set aside, although the magistrate did not fully
answer my queries. According to the record of the proceedings in
respect of s 112(1)(b) of the CPA questioning, the magistrate could
not find that the accused did admit the elements of the offence. The
conviction is not in accordance with justice.
 Consequently, the
conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside.