80 S. African L.J. 152 (1963)
Compulsory Whipping

handle is hein.journals/soaf80 and id is 164 raw text is: 152            THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW, JOURNAL
the witnesses. Accused's counsel then tendered a plea of guilty of
negligent driving. This the prosecutor accepted and closed his case.
The defence closed its case without calling evidence and no further
reference was made to the car that was supposed to have stopped
suddenly ahead of accused.
It is clear, therefore, that the defence, if it can be called one,
was not proceeded with, i.e. it was abandoned.
I submit further, with respect, that it was wrong for the learned
judge to have said that the case made for the appellant was that he
had travelled too close to the car ahead of him which had suddenly
stopped and that the fact that the prosecutor accepted the plea of
negligent driving was a clear indication that the State was not in
a position to rebut that suggestion. It seems to me that the prosecutor
rebutted the ex pare suggestion, made from the bar, as to the cause
of the collision.
Yours etc.,
N. B.
Dear Sirs,
In the August, 1962, issue of the South African Law Journal
(p. 336), I. T. Rhenius refers to the provisions of section 344 ter.
(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, which provides that, not-
withstanding that the imposition of a sentence of whipping is in
certain circumstances compulsory, it need not be imposed if the
convicted person is proved to have been sentenced previously to-a
whipping other than a whipping imposed upon him as a juvenile; and
to the provisions of rule 1 (a) of the Rules contained in the Fifth
Schedule of the Act which must in terms of section 303 ter. (1)
be observed by the court when taking previous convictions into
account in imposing sentence on a person convicted by it. He then
poses the question: 'What happens when the accused was previously
sentenced to receive strokes as an adult but that sentence is over ten
years old?' After some argument he comes to the conclusion that
'Although a conviction over ten years old has ordinarily to be ignored
when considering what sentence is to be imposed, if the prisoner has
received strokes once then he need not be sentenced to receive strokes
again even if the previous strokes were imposed twenty years previ-
ously. In other words, section 344 ter. (2) should be regarded as
modifying the provisions of rule 1 (a) of the Fifth Schedule.' He
thereupon suggests that all doubt in the matter could be removed
by the insertion of the words 'against him' after the words 'taken
into account' in rule 1 (a).
No fault can be found with the result of this reasoning but it is

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?