Hendricks v S (A420/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 14 (18 February 2015)

Hendricks v S (A420/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 14 (18 February 2015)

The court intended to reduce the appellant's effective sentence from 44 years to 25 years. The reference to 'two years' running concurrently was a typographical error; it should have been 'five years' to achieve the intended outcome. Although section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply due to the lapse of time, the common law permits correction of the order as long as its tenor is preserved. The correction ensures the sentence reflects the court's original intention.

Citation
[2015] ZAWCHC 14
Parties
Appellant: Moegamat Kashief Hendricks; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2015
Case Number
A420/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Correction of Sentence
Outcome
Order corrected to substitute 'five years' for 'two years' in the concurrent sentence calculation, ensuring an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment.
Judges
Gamble, Blignault, Mantame
Legal Topics
Correction of Sentence, Concurrent Sentences, Typographical Error, Criminal Procedure Act Section 298
Criminal Law Correction of Sentence Concurrent Sentences Typographical Error Criminal Procedure Act Section 298

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moegamat Kashief Hendricks

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Correction of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on count 3 should be corrected to reflect the court's intention of a 25-year effective sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the typographical error regarding the period of concurrent sentences can be corrected after more than a week has elapsed.
  3. 3 Whether the correction preserves the tenor of the original order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court intended to reduce the appellant's effective sentence from 44 years to 25 years. The reference to 'two years' running concurrently was a typographical error; it should have been 'five years' to achieve the intended outcome. Although section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply due to the lapse of time, the common law permits correction of the order as long as its tenor is preserved. The correction ensures the sentence reflects the court's original intention.

Court Disposition

Order corrected to substitute 'five years' for 'two years' in the concurrent sentence calculation, ensuring an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment.

Orders

  • Paragraph 27 of the judgment is corrected: the word 'two' is substituted by 'five' in the second line.
  • The effective sentence imposed on the appellant is 25 years imprisonment.