Miti v S (A35/2007) [2019] ZAGPJHC 402 (18 October 2019)

Miti v S (A35/2007) [2019] ZAGPJHC 402 (18 October 2019)

The appeal was upheld on the basis that the trial court failed to consider the guidelines articulated in S v M and did not obtain a pre-sentence and correctional supervision report, resulting in a misdirection. Both parties agreed that the requirements of sections 28(1)(b) and 28(2) of the Constitution were not properly considered. The High Court set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of sentence, instructing the trial court to procure the necessary reports and apply the constitutional and case law guidelines to ensure the best interests of the appellant's minor child are properly considered.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 402
Parties
Appellant: Mpho Beverley Miti; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Case Number
A35/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Sentence
Outcome
Sentence set aside and matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration in accordance with S v M and section 28 of the Constitution.
Judges
A Crutchfield, RM Keightley
Legal Topics
Sentencing Guidelines, Section 28 Child Rights, Fraud, Pre Sentence Report
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Guidelines Section 28 Child Rights Fraud Pre Sentence Report

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Beverley Miti

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing court failed to consider the guidelines in S v M regarding the responsibilities of a sentencing court when imposing sentence on a parent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not obtaining a pre-sentence and correctional supervision report.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of sections 28(1)(b) and 28(2) of the Constitution were properly considered in sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld on the basis that the trial court failed to consider the guidelines articulated in S v M and did not obtain a pre-sentence and correctional supervision report, resulting in a misdirection. Both parties agreed that the requirements of sections 28(1)(b) and 28(2) of the Constitution were not properly considered. The High Court set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of sentence, instructing the trial court to procure the necessary reports and apply the constitutional and case law guidelines to ensure the best interests of the appellant's minor child are properly considered.

Court Disposition

Sentence set aside and matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration in accordance with S v M and section 28 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted back to the trial court in terms of section 19 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 for reconsideration of an appropriate sentence in accordance with the guidelines set out in S v M 2007 (3) SACR 539 (CC) and section 28 of the Constitution.