Cape Town - A woman who represented herself in court after she was found guilty of being in possession of tik and mandrax, has had her sentence and conviction set aside following an automatic review by the Western Cape High Court.
The initial ruling had used the woman, Kim Paulse’s admissions of guilt alone to convict her, without scientific evidence in the form of the section 212 certificate that such an admission was correctly made.
Judge Robert Henney said: “It is clear from the authorities cited that where an accused pleads guilty to a charge where one of the elements of the crime can only be proven by scientific means, the court must request the prosecutor to hand up the analysis certificate in order to satisfy itself that the admission was correctly made.”
The accused had appeared in the Cape Town Magistrate's on several occasions, after being arrested on September 9, 2021, during which time she was represented by an attorney appointed by Legal Aid South Africa.
After being released on bail, she absconded and her legal representative as a result withdrew from record. On her arrest, her rights to legal representation and legal aid were again explained by the magistrate. She elected to conduct her own defence and pleaded guilty to the offences as charged.
“That day I was in my room, with the lolly in my hand and the pipe was on the table. I heard someone tapping on my shoulder, and when I looked back it was the police. They found the lolly in my hand and put it into a bag. They found the pipe with mandrax on the cupboard and they put it in the packet. They arrested me and I was hand cu(ff)ed,” Paulse had testified.
She was sentenced to a fine of R3 000 or 90 days imprisonment, suspended for five years.
However Judge Henny explained that where an accused was an inexperienced person who was unrepresented and charged in respect of a prohibited dependence-producing substance and pleaded guilty, “the court may not simply accept his admission of an unknown fact”.
“There would have to be additional grounds on which the court could rely that the admitted fact is true before the court can be satisfied that the accused is guilty.”
“In the absence of any further information or evidence to satisfy itself that the accused were indeed in possession of an undesirable dependence producing substance as listed in Part 2 of schedule 3 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (DDTA), the conviction in the respect of both charges were improper and falls to be set aside,” Judge Henney found.
Cape Times