Faure v S (09/2009) [2010] ZAECGHC 23 (30 March 2010)

Faure v S (09/2009) [2010] ZAECGHC 23 (30 March 2010)

The court found that the sentence of 15 years imprisonment for count 1 was disproportionate and excessive when compared to sentences imposed in similar cases of fraud. The appellant's conduct, while serious and prejudicial, did not justify such a severe sentence, especially considering his personal circumstances and the duration and extent of the fraudulent activity. The court held that a sentence of ten years imprisonment was appropriate and that the disparity between the trial court's sentence and the appellate court's view justified interference. The sentences for the remaining counts were confirmed and ordered to run concurrently with the revised sentence for count 1.

Citation
[2010] ZAECGHC 23
Parties
Appellant: Jan Daniel Faure; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Case Number
09/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld; sentence for count 1 reduced from 15 years to 10 years imprisonment, backdated to 9 May 2008. Sentences for other counts confirmed and to run concurrently.
Judges
C Plasket, J Roberson
Legal Topics
Sentencing Discretion, Fraud, Companies Act, Appellate Interference, Proportionality of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Discretion Fraud Companies Act Appellate Interference Proportionality of Sentence

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Daniel Faure

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 15 years imprisonment for fraud (count 1) was excessive and disproportionate.
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence of 15 years imprisonment for count 1 was disproportionate and excessive when compared to sentences imposed in similar cases of fraud. The appellant's conduct, while serious and prejudicial, did not justify such a severe sentence, especially considering his personal circumstances and the duration and extent of the fraudulent activity. The court held that a sentence of ten years imprisonment was appropriate and that the disparity between the trial court's sentence and the appellate court's view justified interference. The sentences for the remaining counts were confirmed and ordered to run concurrently with the revised sentence for count 1.

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld; sentence for count 1 reduced from 15 years to 10 years imprisonment, backdated to 9 May 2008. Sentences for other counts confirmed and to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds to the extent that the sentence of 15 years imprisonment for count 1 is set aside and replaced with a sentence of ten years imprisonment backdated to 9 May 2008.
  • The sentences imposed in respect of counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 are confirmed and shall run concurrently with the sentence in respect of count 1.