Johaar and Another v S (652/08) [2009] ZASCA 46; 2010 (1) SACR 23 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 520 (SCA) (21 May 2009)

Johaar and Another v S (652/08) [2009] ZASCA 46; 2010 (1) SACR 23 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 520 (SCA) (21 May 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regional magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the personal circumstances of each appellant, and their expressions of remorse. The magistrate had mitigated the cumulative effect of the sentences by ordering substantial concurrency and by imposing sentences below the statutory minimums where justified. The court found no material misdirection or shockingly inappropriate sentence that would warrant interference. The sentences, though severe, were proportionate to the gravity and frequency of the offences, and the interests of society demanded a strong...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Wayne Johaar; Appellant: Glenneal October; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2009
Case Number
652/08
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the Cape High Court, Sitting as an Appeal Court From the Regional Court.
Outcome
Both appeals are dismissed.
Judges
Cloete, Snyders, Griesel
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Cumulative Sentences, Armed Robbery, Mens Rea, Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Cumulative Sentences Armed Robbery Mens Rea Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Johaar

Appellant

Glenneal October

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence From the Cape High Court, Sitting as an Appeal Court From the Regional Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellants is so excessive as to warrant interference on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing court properly considered the proportionality of the sentences and the personal circumstances of the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the minimum sentence legislation was correctly applied and whether substantial and compelling circumstances justified deviation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regional magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the personal circumstances of each appellant, and their expressions of remorse. The magistrate had mitigated the cumulative effect of the sentences by ordering substantial concurrency and by imposing sentences below the statutory minimums where justified. The court found no material misdirection or shockingly inappropriate sentence that would warrant interference. The sentences, though severe, were proportionate to the gravity and frequency of the offences, and the interests of society demanded a strong...

Court Disposition

Both appeals are dismissed.

Orders

  • Both appeals are dismissed.