Law Long opinion - FIRAC

He pleaded guilty with regards to the charges of reckless or negligent driving in contravention of s 63 (1) of the National Road traffic Act . Mr Singh was driving on a public road and whilst doing this he unlawfully and negligently passed a vehicle in front of him. There was oncoming traffic and a collision had occurred and Mr Singh’s passenger was seriously injured.

The second charge was with regards to the contravention of s 65 (2)(a) Of the National Road Traffic Act . He had unlawfully and consciously drove while under the influence of alcohol. Singh had driven with a blood alcohol level of 0,06 grams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. He pleaded guilty.

Lastly, Praveen Singh was charged with defeating and obstructing the course of justice when he intentionally and unlawfully resisted giving a sample of blood. Mr Singh had contravened s 65 (9) of Act 93 . The accused has pleaded not guilty to this charge.

On the night of August 20, 2000, Praveen Singh and Ms Refilwe Tong had attended a party which wa

2. The obstruction of Justice charge remained and the probation report was not in the court’s possession at the time of passing a sentence would you consider that the magistrate had incorrectly passed a sentence?

When weighing up all the factors with regards to the hearsay issue, it was concluded that hearsay evidence should not be allowed and hence the Obstruction of Justice charge would be dropped. In doing so the harsh sentence that was imposed would have to be reversed so that it would now be a reasonable and less harsh sentence since Mr Singh was only found guilty on two statutory charges.

(ii) the nature of the evidence

False financial documents and information were issued in order to qualify for a loan. Standard Bank was deceived into discounting Accommodation Bills and promissory notes from two furnishing companies.

The appropriate sentence would be suspension of Driver’s Licence and two years of correctional supervision and a suspended sentence of ten months imprisonment over five years. By the time his five year suspension is over, he should be a fully qualified lawyer and by that time he should know the consequences of committing an offence with regards to himself and his job.

According to s 89 (1) of the National Road Traffic Act , if anybody does not comply with any of the Provisions of the Act then that person shall be found guilty of an offence. With regards to s 65 (9) of the National Road Traffic Act , Praveen cannot be found guilty of an offence because at first he refused to give the sample of his blood due to his awareness of his constitutional rights and the constitution is the “supreme law of our land” and it serves precedent over all other laws. After being made aware of the consequences of refusing a sample of blood by Officer Fourie, Mr Praveen Singh had voluntarily given a sample of blood and this is why he cannot be found guilty of contravening s 65 (9) of the National Road Traffic Act and hence he cannot be found guilty of committing an offence in terms of s 89 (2) read with 89 (1) of the National Road Traffic Act and he cannot be given a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding six years.

Some topics in this essay:
Traffic Act, Amendment Act, Praveen Singh, Thinus Fourie, Hearsay Evidence, Procedure Act, COLLEGE CEKISO, Praveen Singh’s, Act Driving, Provision Act, hearsay evidence, correctional supervision, evidence admitted, hearsay evidence admitted, amendment act, praveen singh, traffic act, road traffic act, road traffic, national road traffic, national road, law amendment act, law amendment, sample blood, criminal procedure act,