Lebakeng v S (A119/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 237 (14 November 2019)

Lebakeng v S (A119/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 237 (14 November 2019)

The court found that the factors advanced by the appellant, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The appellant was not an immature youth; he was married, had four children, and planned the attack, which involved the discharge of a firearm and threats of sexual violence. The court held that the effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was shockingly inappropriate for a first offender, given that all the offences were committed at the same time and place. The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently,...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 237
Parties
Appellant: Lebohang Lebakeng; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
A119/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld to the extent that all sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the sentence is ante dated to 23 May 2016.
Judges
C.J. Musi, S. Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Sentencing Discretion, Minimum Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Attempted Rape
Criminal Law Sentencing Discretion Minimum Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Attempted Rape

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebohang Lebakeng

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the Regional Magistrate were appropriate in light of the prescribed minimum sentences for robbery with aggravating circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence than the statutory minimum.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the factors advanced by the appellant, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The appellant was not an immature youth; he was married, had four children, and planned the attack, which involved the discharge of a firearm and threats of sexual violence. The court held that the effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was shockingly inappropriate for a first offender, given that all the offences were committed at the same time and place. The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently,...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld to the extent that all sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the sentence is ante dated to 23 May 2016.

Orders

  • All sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
  • The sentence is ante dated to 23 May 2016.