A Lichtenburg man’s conviction and 12-month prison sentence for stealing socks has been overturned by the North West High Court, which found the magistrate’s prior knowledge of an accused’s criminal record irreparably tainted the fairness of the trial.
Simon Mmote Twai was accused of stealing multiple pairs of socks valued at R239.96 from a retail store located in the Lichtenburg Mall in February 2026. While the theft itself was minor, the High Court found that the subsequent legal proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to a procedural irregularity by the presiding magistrate.
Magistrate Wessels, who took Twai’s guilty plea and handed down a 12-month direct imprisonment sentence, had also presided over his initial court appearance. During that crucial first appearance, Twai disclosed that he had an extensive criminal record, which included five previous convictions specifically for theft.
According to the review judgment delivered by Judge Petersen, with Judge Reddy concurring, a judicial officer acquiring knowledge of an accused’s prior convictions before making a determination of guilt constitutes an irregularity. The High Court emphasised that the Criminal Procedure Act1 explicitly protects against the disclosure of previous convictions prior to a verdict, specifically to maintain the absolute fairness and objectivity of the trial process.
In a query response submitted to the High Court, Magistrate Wessels candidly admitted to presiding over the initial proceedings but stated she had no independent recollection of Twai’s earlier disclosure. She noted that at the exact time of conviction and sentencing, she was not consciously aware of his criminal history.
Despite her candor, the High Court firmly held that the legal standard is an objective one. It clarified that it does not matter whether the magistrate consciously remembered the prior convictions; what ultimately matters is whether a reasonable, objective, and informed observer would apprehend a risk to impartiality. Because the magistrate’s mind had been exposed to the accused’s criminal history before guilt was determined, the integrity of the judicial process was tainted.
The matter originally reached the High Court on automatic review. The magistrate forwarded the case because she had less than five years of experience and imposed a 12-month sentence, overlooking the fact that Twai’s legal representation would ordinarily exclude his case from the automatic review process.
However, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to intervene, and declared that the proceedings were not in accordance with justice. Ultimately, the High Court set aside both the conviction and the sentence. The court ordered that steps be taken to secure Twai’s attendance for a new trial before a different magistrate. Furthermore, the court directed that if Twai is convicted again at the new hearing, the time he has already spent in custody must be taken into account during his sentencing.
Written by Theo Tembo
Read more from The Legal Desk:
- Act 51 of 1977. ↩︎
The Legal Desk 
Leave a comment