Joubert v S (642/2016) [2017] ZASCA 3; 2017 (1) SACR 497 (SCA) (3 March 2017)

Joubert v S (642/2016) [2017] ZASCA 3; 2017 (1) SACR 497 (SCA) (3 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the failure of the appellate court to give the appellant prior notice of its intention to increase the sentence constituted a fatal procedural irregularity and infringed the appellant's right to a fair trial. The State's attempt to seek an increase in sentence without obtaining leave to cross-appeal was also irregular. The appellant was materially prejudiced, as he was deprived of the opportunity to prepare adequately, withdraw his appeal, or make pointed submissions on the risk of a sentence increase. The court found that substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the proper procedure, as outlined in S v Bogaards, must be followed....

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Francois Johan Joubert; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Case Number
642/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; increased sentence set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of sentence in accordance with Constitutional Court guidelines.
Judges
Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Schippers
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Sentence Increase on Appeal, Procedural Irregularity, Notice of Intention, Remittal Guidelines
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Fair Trial Rights Sentence Increase on Appeal Procedural Irregularity Notice of Intention Remittal Guidelines

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois Johan Joubert

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was infringed by the failure of the appellate court to give prior notice of its intention to increase the sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted by the State to seek an increase in sentence on appeal was legally permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant suffered material prejudice as a result of the irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the failure of the appellate court to give the appellant prior notice of its intention to increase the sentence constituted a fatal procedural irregularity and infringed the appellant's right to a fair trial. The State's attempt to seek an increase in sentence without obtaining leave to cross-appeal was also irregular. The appellant was materially prejudiced, as he was deprived of the opportunity to prepare adequately, withdraw his appeal, or make pointed submissions on the risk of a sentence increase. The court found that substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the proper procedure, as outlined in S v Bogaards, must be followed....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; increased sentence set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of sentence in accordance with Constitutional Court guidelines.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The sentence imposed on appeal is set aside.