Each year we pay tribute to the heroes in blue who have paid the highest price. This year was no exception. We tell you a short story about each of these latest heroes – refer to our article published from p 32 in the October 2017 issue of Servamus.
The weather has caused havoc in large parts of the world in recent times – resulting a huge loss of lives. Ever thought about how you would react during a disaster? Read our article published from p 14 in the October 2017 issue of Servamus.
When a disaster strikes, the affected community is dependent on men and women who are willing to leave everything at home to search for survivors and treat the injured. Such are the men and women from Rescue SA – we tell you more about these heroes in our article published from p 22 in the October 2017 issue of Servamus.
- Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Parker 2015 (2) SACR 109 (SCA)
Step-in-Time Supermarket CC*, a registered Value-Added Tax (VAT) vendor (Afrikaans: “ondernemer”), and Mr Parker, its sole representative, were charged in the regional court in Bellville in the Cape Peninsula on a number of counts under the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (the VAT Act) respectively. Apart from these statutory offences supra, the CC* and Parker were also charged with 16 counts of common law* theft of money allegedly collected in respect of VAT. The charges under the VAT Act related to the CC’s* failure to submit VAT returns as per section 28(1)(a) of the VAT Act in the period from February 2001 to February 2006, while the common law* theft charges were based on the CC’s* failure to pay VAT over the same period. The charge-sheet alleged, however, that all 16 offences of common law* theft were committed on 23 October 2006, that being the date upon which the VAT returns for the CC* were eventually filed.
- S V Mandlozi 2015 (2) SACR 258 (FB)
Ms Lindiwe Mandlozi, also known as Leopoldina Maconze (hereinafter referred to as the accused), was convicted before the regional court in Kroonstad in the Free State (the trial court) of contravention of section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, read together with certain specified provisions thereof. She was sentenced to 18 years’ incarceration.
The particulars of the offence were that the accused was found in possession of 25.8885 kg of methamphetamine, a drug with the street name “crystal meth” or “Tik”. According to the charge-sheet, the sale price of the methamphetamine was (during August 2012) approximately between R7.76 million and R10.3 million; in other words, its value ranged between R300/g and R400/g.
- S V Mukuyu 2017 (2) SACR 27 (GJ)
Section 51(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (“Act 105 of 1997”) provides as follows:
“51. Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious offences
(2) Notwithstanding any other law but subject to subsections (3) and (6) [of section 51], a regional court or a High Court shall sentence a person who has been convicted of an offence referred to in -
In a publication unrelated to Servamus, Pollex recently remarked as follows as far as Act 60 of 2000 is concerned:
“There are, so to speak, ‘six interpretations of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. One in Cape Town (in the south of South Africa); one in Musina (in the north); one in Durban (in the east); one in Port Nolloth (in the west); one by SAPS Head Office (Central Firearms Registry); and then the real interpretation.”
More recently, the Pretoria High Court gave judgment in the matter of South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of Safety and Security of the RSA, unreported, case number 21177/2016 dated 4 July 2017 (GP) - in which SA Hunters applied for an order to have sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act declared unconstitutional.