Jansen v The State (40043/14; 229/14) [2015] ZASCA 151; 2016 (1) SACR 377 (SCA) (2 October 2015)

Jansen v The State (40043/14; 229/14) [2015] ZASCA 151; 2016 (1) SACR 377 (SCA) (2 October 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by imposing sentences contrary to those contained in the plea and sentence agreements without advising the State and the accused that it considered the proposed sentences unjust, as required by s 105A(9) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This failure deprived the parties of their statutory right to make an informed election to abide by or withdraw from the agreement. The irregularity was material and vitiated the proceedings, necessitating that the convictions and sentences be set aside and the matter remitted for trial de novo before another judge. The appellate court rejected the State's argument that it could substitute the...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 151
Parties
Appellant: Denise Cindy-Lee Jansen; Appellant: Marco Rudolf Barnard; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2015
Case Number
40043/14; 229/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; matter remitted for trial de novo before another judge.
Judges
Maya, Theron, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Plea and Sentence Agreements, Criminal Procedure Act Section 105a, Irregularity in Sentencing, Remittal for Retrial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Plea and Sentence Agreements Criminal Procedure Act Section 105a Irregularity in Sentencing Remittal for Retrial

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denise Cindy-Lee Jansen

Appellant

Marco Rudolf Barnard

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial court may deviate from a plea and sentence agreement under s 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act without advising the parties that the proposed sentence is unjust.
  2. 2 Whether failure to inform the parties of the court's view on the sentence constitutes a vitiating irregularity warranting a retrial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by imposing sentences contrary to those contained in the plea and sentence agreements without advising the State and the accused that it considered the proposed sentences unjust, as required by s 105A(9) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This failure deprived the parties of their statutory right to make an informed election to abide by or withdraw from the agreement. The irregularity was material and vitiated the proceedings, necessitating that the convictions and sentences be set aside and the matter remitted for trial de novo before another judge. The appellate court rejected the State's argument that it could substitute the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; matter remitted for trial de novo before another judge.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.