Makhanya v S (A313/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 60 (5 March 2019)

Makhanya v S (A313/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 60 (5 March 2019)

The court found that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellant amounted to a disproportionate punishment. While the sentences for each count were upheld, the court ordered that the sentences for counts 1 and 2 run concurrently, reducing the effective sentence from 27 years to 21 years' imprisonment. The court considered the appellant's time spent in custody prior to trial, acknowledging that not all delays were attributable to him, and held that this factor could be taken into account when assessing the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court reaffirmed that minimum sentencing legislation must be applied unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist,...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 60
Parties
Appellant: Zamokuhle Blessing Makhanya; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2019
Case Number
A313/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially succeeds; sentences for counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 21 years' imprisonment.
Judges
E Weiner, J Brett
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Cumulative Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Failure to Account for Possession, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Minimum Sentencing Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Cumulative Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Failure to Account for Possession Sentencing Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zamokuhle Blessing Makhanya

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellant are shockingly harsh and inappropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the time spent in custody prior to trial should be considered as a substantial and compelling circumstance for sentence reduction.
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed is disproportionate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellant amounted to a disproportionate punishment. While the sentences for each count were upheld, the court ordered that the sentences for counts 1 and 2 run concurrently, reducing the effective sentence from 27 years to 21 years' imprisonment. The court considered the appellant's time spent in custody prior to trial, acknowledging that not all delays were attributable to him, and held that this factor could be taken into account when assessing the cumulative effect of the sentences. The court reaffirmed that minimum sentencing legislation must be applied unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist,...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially succeeds; sentences for counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 21 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds partially.
  • The sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3 are upheld.