Magezi v S (247/13) [2013] ZASCA 200; 2014 (1) SACR 541 (SCA) (2 December 2013)

Magezi v S (247/13) [2013] ZASCA 200; 2014 (1) SACR 541 (SCA) (2 December 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sentences imposed for rape and attempted murder arose from a single ongoing event and, in terms of section 39(2)(a)(i) of the Correctional Services Act, any determinate sentence of incarceration runs concurrently with a life sentence. The order of the court below, which directed that the sentences not run concurrently, was in clear violation of the statutory provision. The minimum sentence of life imprisonment for rape was correctly applied, as there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation. The order was set aside and substituted to clarify that the sentence for attempted murder runs concurrently with the life...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 200
Parties
Appellant: Mashava Michael Magezi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2013
Case Number
247/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent that the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Judges
NAVSA, MAYA, SALDULKER
Legal Topics
Rape, Minimum Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Correctional Services Act, Attempted Murder
Criminal Law Rape Minimum Sentencing Concurrent Sentences Correctional Services Act Attempted Murder

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashava Michael Magezi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences for rape and attempted murder should have been ordered to run concurrently.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory minimum sentence for rape was correctly applied.
  3. 3 Whether the court below erred in not finding substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sentences imposed for rape and attempted murder arose from a single ongoing event and, in terms of section 39(2)(a)(i) of the Correctional Services Act, any determinate sentence of incarceration runs concurrently with a life sentence. The order of the court below, which directed that the sentences not run concurrently, was in clear violation of the statutory provision. The minimum sentence of life imprisonment for rape was correctly applied, as there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation. The order was set aside and substituted to clarify that the sentence for attempted murder runs concurrently with the life...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent that the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted as follows: (a) On count one, rape, the accused is sentenced to life imprisonment. (b) On count two, attempted murder, the accused is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The sentence on count two is to run concurrently with the life sentence on count one.