Marinus v S (A216/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 310 (14 September 2012)

Marinus v S (A216/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 310 (14 September 2012)

The court held that, following the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity of section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for child offenders, it was required to reconsider the sentence afresh. The appellant was 17 years and 8 months old at the time of the offences and had spent two years in custody awaiting trial. The offences, though serious and traumatic for the victims, were committed as part of a single course of conduct on the same day. The totality principle required that the sentences not be disproportionate to the overall criminal behaviour. The court found that the magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's youthfulness and the interconnectedness of...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 310
Parties
Appellant: Allistair Marinus; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2012
Case Number
A216/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentences adjusted to run concurrently, resulting in an effective 12 years imprisonment.
Judges
Stelzner, Ndita
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentences Act, Child Offender Sentencing, Rape, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Concurrent Sentences, Constitutional Rights of Children
Criminal Law Minimum Sentences Act Child Offender Sentencing Rape Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allistair Marinus

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum sentencing provisions under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 apply to a child offender.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed by the magistrate were appropriate given the appellant's youth and the circumstances of the offences.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences for rape and robbery should run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity of section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for child offenders, it was required to reconsider the sentence afresh. The appellant was 17 years and 8 months old at the time of the offences and had spent two years in custody awaiting trial. The offences, though serious and traumatic for the victims, were committed as part of a single course of conduct on the same day. The totality principle required that the sentences not be disproportionate to the overall criminal behaviour. The court found that the magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's youthfulness and the interconnectedness of...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentences adjusted to run concurrently, resulting in an effective 12 years imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld.
  • The appellant is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment on each count of rape.