Marks and Another v S (A156/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 594 (20 May 2024)

Marks and Another v S (A156/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 594 (20 May 2024)

The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by finding pre-meditation only at sentencing and not at conviction, and that the factual circumstances did not support a finding of pre-meditation. The murder was not planned but occurred in a fluid situation following an argument, and the evidence did not establish intent formed in advance. Accordingly, the minimum sentence for pre-meditated murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act did not apply; instead, section 51(2) was applicable. The court further found substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder, including the first appellant's youth, lack of...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 594
Parties
Appellant: Beaugan Mervyn Marks; Appellant: Janosky Kade Tristan; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Case Number
A156/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction by first appellant dismissed; appeal against sentence by both appellants upheld in part; sentences substituted as set out in the orders.
Judges
Ismail, Mabesele, Strydom
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Minimum Sentencing, Pre Meditation, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Minimum Sentencing Pre Meditation Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beaugan Mervyn Marks

Appellant

Janosky Kade Tristan

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the murder was pre-meditated for purposes of minimum sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by pronouncing on pre-meditation only at sentencing and not at conviction.
  3. 3 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by finding pre-meditation only at sentencing and not at conviction, and that the factual circumstances did not support a finding of pre-meditation. The murder was not planned but occurred in a fluid situation following an argument, and the evidence did not establish intent formed in advance. Accordingly, the minimum sentence for pre-meditated murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act did not apply; instead, section 51(2) was applicable. The court further found substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder, including the first appellant's youth, lack of...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction by first appellant dismissed; appeal against sentence by both appellants upheld in part; sentences substituted as set out in the orders.

Orders

  • The first appellant's conviction is confirmed.
  • The sentence of life imprisonment for murder is set aside and substituted with 18 years imprisonment.