S v Haipinge ; S v Puriza (CRIMINAL 168 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 142 (03 December 2007);
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
P. H. HAIPINGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
H. PURIZA
CORAM: HOFF, J et MULLER, J
Delivered on: 03 December 2007
REVIEW JUDGMENT
[1] In these two matters submitted to me for review both accused persons were convicted of contempt of court and both were sentenced to a fine of N$100 or 30 days imprisonment. The main charge against both accused was a contravention of the appropriate Regulation in terms of the Road Traffic and Transport Act No. 22 of 1999 for not wearing a seat belt. Both pleaded guilty, were treated in terms of s 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act No 51 of 1977 and fined to N$300 or 30 days imprisonment. These reviews only concern the conviction of contempt of court.
“P/O: Why did you not switch off your cell before entering the court?
Acc: I did not know that I’m not allowed to bring my cell phone into court.
Ct: Guilty of contempt of court.
Sentenced to a fine of N$100 or 30 days imprisonment.”
In respect of Puriza:
“P/O: Is there reason why your cell phone is not switched off?
Acc: I forgot.
P/O: Unacceptable complete disrespect for the court. Found in contempt of court.
Ct: Guilty of contempt of court.
Sentenced to a fine of N$100 or 30 days imprisonment.”
[3] From these proceedings it is apparent that:
it was the same presiding magistrate;
both accused were undefended;
both accused did not switch off their cellular phones and I infer that both phones apparently rang in court;
Puriza’s excuse was that he forgot to switch his phone off and Haipinge did not know it was not allowed to bring the phone into court;
None of the accused were warned by the magistrate that it may be regarded as an act of contempt of court;
None of the accused were given the opportunity to make submissions after having been warned as mentioned in e) above and none were given the opportunity to apologise to the magistrate; and
None of the accused were afforded the opportunity to make submissions in mitigation of sentence.
The convictions of contempt of court and sentences of both accused, namely P. H. Haipinge in case no 17637/07 and H. Puriza Case no16623/07 are set aside;
Any fines paid by any of the accused P. H. Haipinge and H. Puriza in respect of the convictions of contempt of court and sentences imposed in respect thereof, must be refunded to them.
____________
MULLER, J
I concur
_________
HOFF, J