Lottering v S (CA&R115/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 95 (22 September 2015)

Lottering v S (CA&R115/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 95 (22 September 2015)

The court found that the sentence imposed by the Regional Magistrate was disproportionately harsh given the appellant's personal circumstances, the nature of the offences, and the fact that his previous convictions were old. The appellant did not intentionally cause the death of his grandchild, pleaded guilty, and had responsibilities towards his family. Correctional supervision was deemed appropriate, and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was replaced with four years imprisonment in terms of Section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, with both counts treated as one for sentencing purposes and the sentence ante-dated to 27 July 2013.

Citation
[2015] ZAECGHC 95
Parties
Appellant: Japie Lottering; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Case Number
CA&R115/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside and replaced with correctional supervision.
Judges
N G Beshe, B Majiki
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Assault Gbh, Sentencing Principles, Correctional Supervision, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Assault Gbh Sentencing Principles Correctional Supervision Criminal Procedure Act

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

Parties

Japie Lottering

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the Regional Court was shockingly severe and inappropriate.
  2. 2 Whether correctional supervision is a suitable alternative to direct imprisonment in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence imposed by the Regional Magistrate was disproportionately harsh given the appellant's personal circumstances, the nature of the offences, and the fact that his previous convictions were old. The appellant did not intentionally cause the death of his grandchild, pleaded guilty, and had responsibilities towards his family. Correctional supervision was deemed appropriate, and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was replaced with four years imprisonment in terms of Section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, with both counts treated as one for sentencing purposes and the sentence ante-dated to 27 July 2013.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside and replaced with correctional supervision.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is allowed.
  • The sentence imposed by the Magistrate is set aside and replaced by four years imprisonment in terms of Section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.