SHIVUTE, A.J.: [1] This matter came before me on automatic review. The accused was charged with attempted murder, alternatively contravening section 38 (1) (i) of Act 7 of 1996 – Negligent discharge of a firearm.

[2] I directed the following query to the trial magistrate, namely:

“The review covering sheet J4 reads that the accused was convicted of the offence of attempted murder alternatively contravening section 38 (1) (i) of Act 7 of 1996 – Negligent discharge of a firearm. However the charge sheet J15 reads that the accused was convicted of main count: Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Which exactly is the offence the accused was convicted of?”

[3] The learned magistrate replied as follows:

“I agree to the Honourable Review Judge’s questions. I wish to point out to the Honourable Reviewing Judge’s question as to which exactly is the offence the accused is convicted of? The verdict was guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Although the charge was attempted murder main count and alternatively Contravening Section 38 (1) of Act 7 of 1996 – Negligent discharge of a firearm. Infact the state accepts a plea in respect of count 1. However the court convicted the accused on assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Reasons are that the accused denied intention to kill the complainant as per his plea in terms of section 112 (1) (b). The complainant also gave evidence to say that she does not know what accused’s intention to shot at her was. The conviction on review covering sheet is wrong. I therefore request the Honourable Review Judge to amend the conviction on review covering sheet to read assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm if that will not be prejudicial to the accused hence possibility of competent verdict explained to him”.

[4] Before the magistrate certifies the accused record to be the record of proceedings tried before her, she should first proof read the record. It is clear that the magistrate did not pay proper attention to the record otherwise she could have picked up that the sentence which is on the J4 – review covering sheet was wrong.

[5] As the magistrate requested the conviction on the J4 to be amended, this Court makes the following order:

1. The verdict is amended to read:

Main count – Accused guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

2. Alternative charge: Accused not guilty and discharged.

3. The sentence in respect of the main count is confirmed.

_______________________________ (Signed)

SHIVUTE, A.J

I concur

________________________________ (Signed)

LIEBENBERG, A.J