Steyn v The State

The appellant was convicted on a plea of guilty in the regional court on charges of forgery, uttering and fraud arising from falsifying an insurance valuation certificate and submitting a fraudulent claim with a potential loss of R42 000. She received a suspended sentence on the forgery and uttering counts and five years’ imprisonment under s 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the fraud count. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The High Court granted leave to adduce further evidence on sentence from a social worker, but the trial court failed properly to record its findings on that evidence as required by s 309B(5)(c)(ii). The High Court nevertheless refused the petition for leave to appeal. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that refusal.

The application for leave to appeal against the refusal of the appellant’s petition for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The case clarifies the approach to procedural irregularities in applications for leave to appeal involving further evidence under s 309B of the Criminal Procedure Act. It confirms that non-compliance with peremptory recording requirements does not necessarily vitiate proceedings where the appellate court can itself properly assess the evidence, and it reinforces the test of reasonable prospects of success when considering leave to appeal.