S v Coetzee (2) (Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 6 of 2000) [2000] NAHC 4 (27 January 2000)

THE STATE V CARLO COETZEE CASE NO. CR 6 / 2 0 00 2 0 0 0 / 0 1 / 27 H a n n a h, J. et Maritz, J. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - in - two S.304(4) of CPA different c a s es a c c u s ed having s a me n a me - magistrate convicting the one of an offence committed by t he other - conviction of innocent n a m e s a ke set aside. review different special two THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA THE STATE a nd CARLO COETZEE CASE NO. CR 6 / 00 A c c u s ed (HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO. 1 0 7 / 2 0 0 0) CORAM: HANNAH, J. et MARITZ, J. Delivered on: 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 - 27 REVIEW JUDGMENT MARITZ, . J. : When Carlo Coetzee dutifully a t t e n d ed t he Magistrates' Court, Windhoek on 1 December 1999 for an a p p e a r a n ce in D-court, he m u st have b e en s o m e w h at s u r p r i s ed w h en he w as s u d d e n ly called to a p p e ar before the m a g i s t r a te of A-court. Even greater his s u r p r i se m u st have b e en w h en the p r o s e c u t or informed t he court t h at h is a p p e a r a n ce w as p u r s u a nt to a w a r r a nt for h is a r r e st earlier i s s u ed b e c a u se he h ad failed to a p p e ar in t h at court on 11 November 1999. When t he presiding magistrate inquired a b o ut his w h e r e a b o u ts on t h at d a t e, he innocently stated t h at he h ad b e en b u sy with e x a m i n a t i o ns a nd did n ot k n ow t h at he h ad to a p p e ar in court. Unconvinced by his explanation a nd claimed innocence, t he magistrate convicted h im of c o n t e m pt of c o u rt a nd s e n t e n c ed h im to N$ 100.00 or 30 d a ys i m p r i s o n m e n t. M o st s u r p r i s e d, h o w e v e r, t he p r e s i d i ng m a g i s t r a te m u st h a ve b e en w h en s o m e w h at l a t er t h at d ay t he r e al a c c u s e d, a l so k n o wn as C a r lo C o e t z e e, a p p e a r ed before h i m. In fact, h is a p p e a r a n ce h ad b e en s e c u r ed by h is a r r e st on t he i s s u ed w a r r a n t. T he m a g i s t r a te a l so c o n v i c t ed h im of c o n t e m pt a nd i m p o s ed a nd i d e n t i c al s e n t e n c e. T h e r e a f t er t he a c c u s ed p l e a d ed g u i l ty to t he o r i g i n al c h a r ge of shoplifting; w as d u ly c o n v i c t ed a nd s u b s e q u e n t ly s e n t e n c e d. T he m a g i s t r a te f o r w a r d ed t he r e c o rd of t he p r o c e e d i n gs on s p e c i al review in t e r ms of s e c t i on 304(4) of t he CPA to t h is c o u rt w i th an a c c o m p a n y i ng r e q u e st to s et a s i de t he c o n v i c t i on a nd s e n t e n ce of t he " i n n o c e n t" Mr C o e t z e e. I h a ve no d o u bt t h at we s h o u ld a c c e de to t he r e q u e s t. C o n s e q u e n t l y, t he following o r d er is m a d e: "The conviction and sentence of one Carlo Coetzee on a charge of contempt of court in case no. A6732/1999 are set aside. This order shall not affect a similar conviction and sentence of the accused (with the same name) who was also charged and convicted of theft in the same case."