Dagga dealers win case review

Johannesburg 201209 Dagga leaf in the hostle water. Members of the local volunteers together with the SAPS conducted a raid at the Dube Hostle, Soweto and a field behind the hostle where dagga was growing was found during the raid. No arrests was made because the suspects had fled before the poicemen arrived. picture : neil baynes

Johannesburg 201209 Dagga leaf in the hostle water. Members of the local volunteers together with the SAPS conducted a raid at the Dube Hostle, Soweto and a field behind the hostle where dagga was growing was found during the raid. No arrests was made because the suspects had fled before the poicemen arrived. picture : neil baynes

Published Oct 16, 2012

Share

Durban - Two convicted drug dealers, who had a dagga laboratory concealed in their Durban North home, had the dismissal of their review proceedings set aside by the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday.

The review application was meant to have been heard in August, but because Tracy-Anne Pretorius and her boyfriend, Tyronne Hofland’s legal representatives were not present in court, it was dismissed. On Monday, however, the dismissal was set aside and the review proceedings will be heard on November 1.

They were convicted with Travis Bailey, Bonzile Chutshela and Senzele Dlezi of dealing in dagga.

This was after they were arrested in October 2010 after a raid at Pretorius’s home in Briar Lane.

In the raid 44kg of dagga estimated to be worth R2.2 million was found.

The dagga was being cultivated in a laboratory in a concealed basement with a sprinkler system, timers, floodlights, fans and air-conditioning.

Magistrate N Kathrada ruled that while the State’s case had been circumstantial, the accused had not testified against it.

But sentence was not passed because of the launching of the review application, in which it was claimed that the couple’s advocate, JP Van der Veen, was “totally incompetent”.

The couple’s attorney, Sarah Pugsley, said in court papers that the review application was being brought on the basis that her clients’ right to “adequate, competent legal representation” had been infringed. - The Mercury

Related Topics: