Arries v S (46/2013) [2015] ZANCHC 45 (9 March 2015)

Arries v S (46/2013) [2015] ZANCHC 45 (9 March 2015)

The court held that while the Child Justice Act requires the sentencing court to take into account the time a child has spent in custody prior to sentencing, it does not empower the magistrate to backdate the sentence to a date when the accused was not in custody. The previous statutory provision did require backdating under certain circumstances, but this was replaced by the current provision, which only obliges the court to consider time spent in custody. In this case, the magistrate erred in backdating the sentence to the date of initial conviction, as the accused was not in custody from that date. The correct approach was to backdate the sentence only to the date when the accused was...

Citation
[2015] ZANCHC 45
Parties
Defendant: Okkie Arries; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2015
Case Number
46/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review After Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Conviction and sentence confirmed; order backdating sentence to initial conviction date set aside and replaced.
Judges
Olivier R, Williams R
Legal Topics
Child Justice Act, Sentencing Procedure, Backdating of Sentence, Review of Magistrate Decision
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Child Justice Act Sentencing Procedure Backdating of Sentence Review of Magistrate Decision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Okkie Arries

Defendant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review After Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate was empowered to backdate the sentence to the date of initial conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory provisions required or permitted backdating of the sentence under the Child Justice Act.
  3. 3 Whether the time spent in a youth care centre prior to sentencing must be taken into account.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the Child Justice Act requires the sentencing court to take into account the time a child has spent in custody prior to sentencing, it does not empower the magistrate to backdate the sentence to a date when the accused was not in custody. The previous statutory provision did require backdating under certain circumstances, but this was replaced by the current provision, which only obliges the court to consider time spent in custody. In this case, the magistrate erred in backdating the sentence to the date of initial conviction, as the accused was not in custody from that date. The correct approach was to backdate the sentence only to the date when the accused was...

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence confirmed; order backdating sentence to initial conviction date set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The conviction is confirmed.
  • The sentence is confirmed, but the order backdating it to 9 July 2013 is set aside.