Malgas and Others v S (703/2012) [2013] ZASCA 90; 2013 (2) SACR 343 (SCA) (31 May 2013)

Malgas and Others v S (703/2012) [2013] ZASCA 90; 2013 (2) SACR 343 (SCA) (31 May 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the delay of approximately eight years between the imposition of sentence and the hearing of the appeal was primarily attributable to the appellants' own inertia and lack of diligence. The appellants failed to provide any explanation for the delay or demonstrate that they took steps to expedite the appeal. The court found that the appellants adopted a supine attitude, hoping the matter would quietly disappear. While the court acknowledged that, in exceptional circumstances, a lengthy delay may justify interference with sentence, it concluded that the facts of this case did not warrant such intervention. The appellants were not in custody during the...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 90
Parties
Appellant: Henry Malgas; Appellant: Shon Williams; Appellant: Johan Beyers; Appellant: Andy Jansen; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2013
Case Number
703/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Judges
Navsa, Majiedt, Willis
Legal Topics
Sentencing Delay, Appeal Procedure, Exceptional Circumstances, Bail After Conviction
Criminal Law Sentencing Delay Appeal Procedure Exceptional Circumstances Bail After Conviction

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Malgas

Appellant

Shon Williams

Appellant

Johan Beyers

Appellant

Andy Jansen

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lengthy delay between sentence and the hearing of the appeal justifies interference with the sentences imposed.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' conduct contributed to the delay and if so, whether this affects the fairness of their sentences.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a reduction of sentence due to the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the delay of approximately eight years between the imposition of sentence and the hearing of the appeal was primarily attributable to the appellants' own inertia and lack of diligence. The appellants failed to provide any explanation for the delay or demonstrate that they took steps to expedite the appeal. The court found that the appellants adopted a supine attitude, hoping the matter would quietly disappear. While the court acknowledged that, in exceptional circumstances, a lengthy delay may justify interference with sentence, it concluded that the facts of this case did not warrant such intervention. The appellants were not in custody during the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.