M v S (A490/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 435 (8 June 2017)

M v S (A490/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 435 (8 June 2017)

The court held that, following the Constitutional Court's decision in Centre for Child Law, the minimum sentencing regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act could not be applied to the appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offences. The trial court's reliance on minimum sentences for robbery and murder was therefore a misdirection. The court considered the appellant's age, lack of remorse, seriousness and brutality of the offences, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances. Both counsel agreed that the sentences for counts 5, 6, and 7 should be reduced. The court found that a sentence of twelve years for robbery and twenty-two years for each murder count...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 435
Parties
Appellant: C. L. M.; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
A490/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentences for counts 5, 6, and 7 upheld; sentences substituted. Appeal against sentences for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 dismissed.
Judges
W R C Prinsloo, T M Makgoka, J W Louw
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Child Offenders, Constitutional Invalidity, Concurrent Sentences, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Child Offenders Constitutional Invalidity Concurrent Sentences Criminal Procedure

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. L. M.

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum sentencing regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act applies to offenders who were under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.
  2. 2 What constitutes an appropriate sentence for serious offences committed by a child offender.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in considering previous convictions without clarity on their dates.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Constitutional Court's decision in Centre for Child Law, the minimum sentencing regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act could not be applied to the appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offences. The trial court's reliance on minimum sentences for robbery and murder was therefore a misdirection. The court considered the appellant's age, lack of remorse, seriousness and brutality of the offences, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances. Both counsel agreed that the sentences for counts 5, 6, and 7 should be reduced. The court found that a sentence of twelve years for robbery and twenty-two years for each murder count...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentences for counts 5, 6, and 7 upheld; sentences substituted. Appeal against sentences for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 is dismissed, and those sentences are confirmed.
  • The appeal against the sentences in respect of counts 5, 6, and 7 is upheld; those sentences are set aside and replaced with twelve years imprisonment for count 5, and twenty-two years imprisonment for counts 6 and 7.