Malema Sentenced

[Toxxyc]

While that's true, there's also the Dangerous Weapons act and the Constitution that forbids weapons at rallies, so it doesn't really apply.

[shooty]

I know Mr Hood is a well known Law expert.

But i just want to point out that the sentence reads at end weapon must be used for a lawful purpose under the supervision. As Malema used the weapon for an unlawful reason I am not sure the act protects him.

[oafpatroll]

While that's true, there's also the Dangerous Weapons act and the Constitution that forbids weapons at rallies, so it doesn't really apply.

I'm as much a lawyer as I'm a prima ballerina so this is 2c worth at most. He wasn't convicted in terms of either of those acts so as I understand it they have no bearing. He would need to be charged, tried and convicted in terms of those for them to be effective.

[oafpatroll]

I know Mr Hood is a well known Law expert.

But i just want to point out that the sentence reads at end weapon must be used for a lawful purpose under the supervision. As Malema used the weapon for an unlawful reason I am not sure the act protects him.

I don't think your reasoning holds in the illogical lunatic asylum we live in. The person who provided him with the weapons, supervised their illegal use and then retrieved them from him was acquitted.

[paulnb]

I respect Martin Hood but quote "The section reads as follows: “Any person who is at least 21 years of age and the holder of a licence to possess a firearm issued in terms of this Act may allow any other person to use that firearm while under his or her immediate supervision where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose.”
Surely it was not safe and not a lawful purpose to discharge the firearm in the air at a rally. That section of the act to me is more applicable in the confines of a shooting range or hunting.

It is still a mystery to me how the body guard was acquitted. How the hell do you hand a loaded weapon to your principal in the construct of a crowded rally?

And in other news, junior Mugabe who is in the country illegally, in possession of an unlicensed firearm, and attempted to murder his gardener (much more serious actions than Julius I think) - is apparently getting away with just being deported.

[Branden88]

I know Mr Hood is a well known Law expert.

But i just want to point out that the sentence reads at end weapon must be used for a lawful purpose under the supervision. As Malema used the weapon for an unlawful reason I am not sure the act protects him.

It might be that the confusion is between HANDLE (possession) and USE, because the main charges against Malema were, unlawful possession (handle) of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

So, how can Malema have been in unlawful possession (handling) of said firearm if the owner (Snyman) physically handed (gave) him the firearm, Malema did not steal, or take (handled) the firearm without authorisation or consent, nor did he forcefully grab or take it.

Furthermore, the FCA reads as "immediate supervision", now what does "immediate supervision" mean, or how can that be defined ?
Some would say within a couple of meters at all times, others would say, no what if you and your close friend is participating in a club match together but he is using one of your firearms in the club match, or if your friend is on a hunting trip with you and they're using one of your hunting rifles, then a couple of meters could quickly become 20 to 30 meters etc..

I myself have done a few multi gun matches, whereby my friend would make use of my Shotgun, as the licensed owner I'm not the one following him through the course of the stage, the Range Officer is which is not the owner, as the owner I'm at times 20 to 30 meters away from him, standing with the other participants away from the course.
A lot of people are doing it at club matches, spouses, friends etc, using one rifle or shotgun between two or three people etc...

Martin mentions that he believed the Firearms Control Act had not been properly applied, which is correct because Malema was never unlawfully in possession (handling/ handled) the firearm without consent/ authorisation, it was handed to him, and was still under immediate supervision of the owner (Snyman).

On Martin's Facebook group he did mention that he will elaborate on it in more detail around next week.

[Againstthegrains]

Something the courts may have considered is that Snyman is an employee of Malema, therefore he is expected to do what his boss tells him to do. He might argue that he feared he would loose his job if he did not comply, which is possibly the reason the case against him was dropped as it is a clear case of supervisor-subordinate relationship.

[oafpatroll]

Something the courts may have considered is that Snyman is an employee of Malema, therefore he is expected to do what his boss tells him to do. He might argue that he feared he would loose his job if he did not comply, which is possibly the reason the case against him was dropped as it is a clear case of supervisor-subordinate relationship.

If that's a valid defence for criminal conduct I lose more of the little faith I have in our criminal justice circlejerk.

[SSP]

If that's a valid defence for criminal conduct I lose more of the little faith I have in our criminal justice circlejerk.

You will be relieved to know that it is no more of a defence than it was at Nuremburg.

I haven't really followed this case much, let alone Snyman's part of it but it would seem to me to be very unlikely that Snyman, himself, was the owner or the holder of the licence of the stick in question.

At best he would probably have held the firearm on a permit issued by his employer. Thus I do not think that the sections of the act permitting the use of a firearm under supervision of the licence holder apply to him.

It therefore follows that Snyman could not have allowed Malema to use the firearm under his "supervision". Therefore Malema's possession thereof was unlawful.

I don't know exactly what Snyman was charged with, but his aquittal likely to be as a result of the incorrect formulation of charges.
For what it's worth, he should probably have been charged under S120(10) which prohibits the sale or supply of firearms or ammunition to persons who are not permitted to possess them.

[Cardinal]

For what it's worth, he should probably have been charged under S120(10) which prohibits the sale or supply of firearms or ammunition to persons who are not permitted to possess them.

That is indeed the charge he faced (as well as another - failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to a person's property).

As far as I can remember Snyman denied handing the firearm to Malema, and the state presented essentially no evidence or witnesses to support their claim that he did. The court made no finding as to how Malema came into possession of the firearm.

There was something about a spent casing that was "ballistically matched" to one of the security company's firearms, but it was unclear whether this firearm was even in the same province at the time.