Mene v S (CA154/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 108 (11 October 2017)

Mene v S (CA154/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 108 (11 October 2017)

The court held that the sentences imposed, including the order relating to the concurrent running of sentences for counts 1 and the four counts of attempted murder, were justified and reflected the appellant's greater culpability compared to his co-accused. The trial court's failure to explicitly mention the period of pre-trial incarceration did not amount to a misdirection that vitiated the sentence, especially as the issue was not raised during the application for leave to appeal or in argument. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion, as the sentence was not disturbingly inappropriate nor was there any misdirection of sufficient...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 108
Parties
Appellant: Siviwe Mene; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Case Number
CA154/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed.
Judges
J W Eksteen, G H Bloem, N Msizi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Concurrent Sentences, Misdirection on Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Concurrent Sentences Misdirection on Sentence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siviwe Mene

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the effective sentence of 25 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant was disturbingly inappropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not ordering all sentences to run concurrently, particularly in light of the recommended minimum sentences and aggravating circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court committed a misdirection by failing to consider the appellant's 14 months of pre-trial incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sentences imposed, including the order relating to the concurrent running of sentences for counts 1 and the four counts of attempted murder, were justified and reflected the appellant's greater culpability compared to his co-accused. The trial court's failure to explicitly mention the period of pre-trial incarceration did not amount to a misdirection that vitiated the sentence, especially as the issue was not raised during the application for leave to appeal or in argument. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion, as the sentence was not disturbingly inappropriate nor was there any misdirection of sufficient...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court stands.