Blose v S (AR 615/10) [2012] ZAKZPHC 14 (14 March 2012)

Blose v S (AR 615/10) [2012] ZAKZPHC 14 (14 March 2012)

The trial court committed two misdirections: it incorrectly applied the minimum sentencing provisions by categorizing the offence under Part II instead of Part IV of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and it failed to forewarn defence counsel of the possibility of a sentence exceeding the minimum. These irregularities entitled the appellate court to reconsider sentence afresh. However, given the aggravating circumstances—namely, the appellant's role as a hired assassin, his prior conviction for murder, and the deliberate nature of the offence—the sentence of twenty years' imprisonment was deemed appropriate and proportionate. The mitigating factors did not outweigh the...

Citation
[2012] ZAKZPHC 14
Parties
Appellant: Nhlanhla Lucky Blose; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Case Number
AR 615/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of twenty years' imprisonment confirmed.
Judges
Van Zÿl, Seegobin, Gcaba
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Minimum Sentencing, Misdirection on Sentence, Hired Assassin, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Minimum Sentencing Misdirection on Sentence Hired Assassin Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nhlanhla Lucky Blose

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court committed misdirections in sentencing the appellant for attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the minimum sentencing provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were correctly applied.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of twenty years' imprisonment was appropriate in light of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court committed two misdirections: it incorrectly applied the minimum sentencing provisions by categorizing the offence under Part II instead of Part IV of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and it failed to forewarn defence counsel of the possibility of a sentence exceeding the minimum. These irregularities entitled the appellate court to reconsider sentence afresh. However, given the aggravating circumstances—namely, the appellant's role as a hired assassin, his prior conviction for murder, and the deliberate nature of the offence—the sentence of twenty years' imprisonment was deemed appropriate and proportionate. The mitigating factors did not outweigh the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of twenty years' imprisonment confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
  • The sentence of twenty years' imprisonment as imposed by the trial court is confirmed.