S v Jahrs (1) (17 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 45 (29 February 2012)

# S v Jahrs (1) (17 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 45 (29 February 2012) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from NamibLII: S v Jahrs \(1\) \(17 of 2012\) …&body=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29) [ Download RTF (697.1 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (697.1 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### S v Jahrs (1) (17 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 45 (29 February 2012) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 1 / - Citation S v Jahrs (1) (17 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 45 (29 February 2012) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2012] NAHC 45 Copy Court [High Court](/judgments/NAHC/) Case number 17 of 2012 Judges [Hoff J](/judgments/all/?judges=Hoff%20J), [Siboleka J](/judgments/all/?judges=Siboleka%20J) Judgment date 29 February 2012 Language English Other documents [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/45/eng@2012-02-29/attachment/s-v-jahrs-1-2012-nahc-45-29-february-2012.pdf) (50.2 KB) * * * Skip to document content **CASE NO.: CR 17/2012** __NOT REPORTABLE__ ### IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: ### THE STATE and **APOLLUS JAHRS** # # HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO.: 1706/2009 **CORAM:** HOFF, J _et_ SIBOLEKA, J Delivered on: 29 February 2012 ## REVIEW JUDGMENT _**HOFF, J**_**:**[1] The accused was convicted of the crime of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft and sentenced to four years imprisonment of which one year imprisonment was suspended for a period of 2 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of the crime of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft committed during the period of suspension. [2] The accused had plead guilty and was questioned by the magistrate in terms of section 112 (1)(b) of [Act 51 of 1977](/akn/na/act/1977/51). [3] One of the questions directed to the magistrate was as follows: “Why was the element of _mens rea_ (intention) not covered by the s. 112 (1)(b) questioning ?” [4] The magistrate replied as follows: “Upon reflection I concede that the question did not include the word ‘unlawful’ to establish _mens rea_. And more importantly the question, “why he did it ?” should have been asked. I therefore concede that _mens rea_ was not covered and pray that the honourable reviewing judge set aside both conviction and sentence and remit the case back to establish _mens rea_.” [5] This concession was correctly made by the magistrate. [6] In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside and the matter is remitted to the presiding magistrate who is instructed to have the accused person brought before court for questioning in respect of the element of _mens rea only_ and depending on the answer given by the accused person either to enter a plea of not guilty in terms of section 113 of [Act 51 of 1977](/akn/na/act/1977/51) and proceed with the trial or to convict the accused person and sentence him afresh with due regard to the term of imprisonment the accused had already served. _________ ### HOFF, J I agree _____________ **SIBOLEKA, J** #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >