Bafedile v S (CA 41/2013) [2014] ZANWHC 57 (11 December 2014)

Bafedile v S (CA 41/2013) [2014] ZANWHC 57 (11 December 2014)

The appellate court found that while the trial court correctly applied the principles governing minimum sentences and did not err in refusing to deviate from the prescribed sentences for the robbery counts, the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed—resulting in an effective term of 28 years imprisonment—was excessive and disturbingly inappropriate. The court held that justice would be better served by reducing the effective sentence to 22 years imprisonment, with the sentences for attempted murder and both robbery counts running concurrently. The appellant's lack of remorse and the seriousness of the offences justified substantial punishment, but the overall sentence should not be...

Citation
[2014] ZANWHC 57
Parties
Appellant: Jacob Bafedile; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Case Number
CA 41/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence imposed by the trial court set aside and replaced with a reduced effective sentence.
Judges
Gura, Gutta
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Escaping From Custody, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Minimum Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Escaping From Custody Sentencing Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Bafedile

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in imposing the prescribed minimum sentences without considering substantial and compelling circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed was disturbingly inappropriate and excessive.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court failed to consider prospects of rehabilitation, contrition, and remorse.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that while the trial court correctly applied the principles governing minimum sentences and did not err in refusing to deviate from the prescribed sentences for the robbery counts, the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed—resulting in an effective term of 28 years imprisonment—was excessive and disturbingly inappropriate. The court held that justice would be better served by reducing the effective sentence to 22 years imprisonment, with the sentences for attempted murder and both robbery counts running concurrently. The appellant's lack of remorse and the seriousness of the offences justified substantial punishment, but the overall sentence should not be...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence imposed by the trial court set aside and replaced with a reduced effective sentence.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld and the sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
  • The following sentence is imposed: Attempted Murder – five years imprisonment; Robbery with aggravating circumstances (two counts) – fifteen years imprisonment on each count; Escaping from custody in contravention of Section 51(1) of Act 51 of 1977 – two years imprisonment; Escaping from custody in contravention of...