Majesi v S (CA&R128/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 78 (18 September 2014)

Majesi v S (CA&R128/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 78 (18 September 2014)

The court found that while the sentences imposed for each count of murder were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's danger to society, the failure to order any portion of the sentences to run concurrently resulted in a shockingly severe cumulative sentence for a child offender. The court held that an effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment would be appropriate, balancing the interests of society with the appellant's age and constitutional protections for children. The court confirmed the sentences of 13 years' imprisonment for each count but ordered that 6 years of the sentence on the second count be served concurrently with the sentence on the first...

Citation
[2014] ZAECGHC 78
Parties
Appellant: Sithembiso Mabhuti Majesi; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2014
Case Number
CA&R128/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially successful; sentences confirmed but portion ordered to run concurrently, resulting in effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.
Judges
G Goosen, S Swartbooi
Legal Topics
Sentencing of Children, Minimum Sentences, Concurrent Sentences, Constitutional Rights of Children
Criminal Law Sentencing of Children Minimum Sentences Concurrent Sentences Constitutional Rights of Children

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sithembiso Mabhuti Majesi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellant, a child at the time of the offences, was shockingly severe and justified interference on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to order a portion of the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 26 years' imprisonment.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were in line with section 28(1)(g) of the Constitution and relevant case law regarding child offenders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the sentences imposed for each count of murder were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's danger to society, the failure to order any portion of the sentences to run concurrently resulted in a shockingly severe cumulative sentence for a child offender. The court held that an effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment would be appropriate, balancing the interests of society with the appellant's age and constitutional protections for children. The court confirmed the sentences of 13 years' imprisonment for each count but ordered that 6 years of the sentence on the second count be served concurrently with the sentence on the first...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially successful; sentences confirmed but portion ordered to run concurrently, resulting in effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds in part.
  • The sentence of 13 years' imprisonment imposed in respect of each count of murder is confirmed.