Previous conviction makes no difference

In a case heard in Court D, a previous case made no difference when it came to sentencing the accused.
On Thursday, April 28, the accused was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. He also pleaded guilty on the same day and he was punished with a fine of R2000.

His defence attorney stated that the accused pleaded guilty on her order, as they don’t intend to waste the court’s time.

He was charged with an excessive amount of alcohol in his blood and the first alternative to this charge was driving with too much alcohol in his blood.
On March 28, 2015, he was stopped by a police official as he was making a u-turn in Plumer Street. The police then tested his alcohol levels and foumd his body contained not less than 0.05mg of alcohol in 100ml, as stated by law. He unlawfully drove the motor vehicle with a running engine at this stage.

“I agree with the charge, and know that I was wrong. I dropped a friend off at his house, just after midnight on the abovementioned date. On my way home, I made a u-turn and that was when I was pulled over by police. The alcohol in my blood was 0.23mg per 100ml, at that stage. I also knew that my conduct was punishable. I was out with friends that night and I do admit that I had a few alcoholic drinks. I made my statement freely and without force,” he stated in court.

The accused also agreed to a previous charge on his name, although this happened in 1985 and he was charged with theft. The state argued, that although this is two different charges, he does have a previous conviction and that should also be taken into consideration.

He is currently 49 years old, with three children, of which one is a minor. He’s been managing his own business for nine years and his defence attorney argued in an effort to not get his drivers’ license suspended. She stated that the accused was remorseful and that he needs his drivers’ license for the type of business he has, and that this would influence his income. His attorney also stated that the accused needs to take his children to school and go to Johannesburg for business ventures.

The state had no questions for the accused, while the magistrate stated that the accused was not involved in any accidents and did not necessarily drive negligently.
His defence attorney said that he has R3000 available for punishment and that the court should consider this and the fact that he does need his drivers’ license.

After the magistrate suggested a R2000 fine, the state had no objections, as this is his first offence on this matter. The magistrate also told the accused that he could face a sentence of six years imprisonment, but because of his guilty plea and because he is a first offender on this matter, she will handle the case with leniency. She also stated that the public must know that this offence is harshly punishable and the aim of a punishment is to repair and rehabilitate the offender.

“You stated that you have been drinking for a couple of years, either, you have never been caught or you have never driven while under the influence,” the magistrate told the accused.

He does have a suspended sentence and if he gets caught again, the punishment will be much harsher.
The magistrate also decided not to suspend his drivers’ license.