A soccer fan who was convicted of drunk driving, after drinking three quarters of a bottle of Savanna, had his conviction overturned.
Image: File
Caught with a bottle of Savanna next to him while he was driving home after watching a Chiefs and Pirates game, the soccer enthusiast later pleaded guilty to drunken driving and was subsequently sentenced, but this was now overturned on review by the court.
The North West Provincial Division of the High Court, sitting in Mafikeng, said it is not clear whether Bathanda Mrabule actually admitted that he was drunk at the time.
Mrabule was arrested on September 29, last year, following his arrest for drunken driving. He appeared in the Potchefstroom Magistrate’s Court, where he insisted on defending himself.
In explaining to the court what happened, Mrabule said he was driving home from the soccer stadium when he felt like getting a drink. He stopped at a tavern to buy a Savanna. He did not finish the drink but took the half-empty bottle along with him, as he was hungry and wanted to get home.
As he was driving to his home, which was located just around the corner from the tavern, he was stopped by the police. They saw the bottle of Savanna and asked him whether he had been drinking, to which he answered yes.
He was then taken to the police station and from there to the hospital for his blood to be drawn.
His blood alcohol level was not presented to the court, as Mrabule from the start admitted that he was guilty of drunken driving. Asked by the magistrate whether he only had one drink, which he did not finish by the time he was stopped by the police, Mrabule said yes.
He also answered in the affirmative when asked whether he knew that the Savanna would have an impact on his driving ability. Mrabule told the court: “It is not right to drive under the influence of liquor because you might make mistakes.”
The magistrate subsequently convicted him of drunken driving and slapped him with a fine of R3 000 or 90 days imprisonment, of which R1,500 or 45 days is suspended for a period of three years.
The matter came under review in the High Court, which overturned the conviction and sentence as being irregular. Acting Judge T Masike said it is the duty of the presiding officer to fully question an accused to ensure they admitted and understood all the elements of the crime, especially if the person defended himself in court. This was not done in this case, the judge said.
