Kammies v S (CA&R 98/10) [2011] ZANCHC 11 (1 July 2011)

Kammies v S (CA&R 98/10) [2011] ZANCHC 11 (1 July 2011)

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to consider the established norms for fines in drunk driving cases and by combining the two charges for sentencing purposes. The sentence imposed was substantially harsher than the norm and did not adequately reflect the appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his financial position and lack of previous convictions. The court held that each charge should have been considered separately and that the trial court underemphasized the mitigating factors. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with fines and suspended imprisonment terms in line with prevailing...

Citation
[2011] ZANCHC 11
Parties
Appellant: Steven Kammies; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2011
Case Number
CA&R 98/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence succeeds; original sentence set aside and replaced with separate fines and suspended imprisonment terms for each charge.
Judges
Olivier, Henriques
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Sentencing Guidelines, Magistrates Discretion, Norms for Fines
Criminal Law Driving Under the Influence Sentencing Guidelines Magistrates Discretion Norms for Fines

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Kammies

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court properly considered the appellant's personal circumstances, especially his financial position, when imposing sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was shockingly inappropriate compared to norms established for similar offences.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred by combining the charges for sentencing purposes instead of treating them separately.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to consider the established norms for fines in drunk driving cases and by combining the two charges for sentencing purposes. The sentence imposed was substantially harsher than the norm and did not adequately reflect the appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his financial position and lack of previous convictions. The court held that each charge should have been considered separately and that the trial court underemphasized the mitigating factors. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with fines and suspended imprisonment terms in line with prevailing...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence succeeds; original sentence set aside and replaced with separate fines and suspended imprisonment terms for each charge.

Orders

  • On count 1: A fine of R4,000 or six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 65(1) or 65(2) of Act 93 of 1996 during the period of suspension.
  • On count 2: A fine of R8,000 or eighteen months imprisonment, of which R2,000 and six months are suspended for five years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 65(1) of Act 93 of 1996 during the period of suspension.