Mkhize and Another v S (A94/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 206 (13 October 2015)

Mkhize and Another v S (A94/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 206 (13 October 2015)

The appeal court found that the trial court failed to properly consider the sentences already being served by the appellants when imposing further lengthy sentences for similar offences. Both parties agreed that the cumulative effect of the sentences was disproportionate and shockingly inappropriate. The appeal court held that section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act required the trial court to consider ordering the sentences to run concurrently with existing sentences. The sentences were accordingly set aside and replaced with sentences that partially run concurrently with the previously imposed sentences, thereby tempering the overall period of imprisonment to ensure fairness and...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 206
Parties
Appellant: Thulani Mkhize and Another; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Case Number
A94/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; sentences set aside and replaced with partially concurrent sentences.
Judges
Moloi, Mohale
Legal Topics
Sentencing Discretion, Minimum Sentences, Concurrent Sentences, Firearms Control Act, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Discretion Minimum Sentences Concurrent Sentences Firearms Control Act Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

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

Parties

Thulani Mkhize and Another

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in imposing sentences without considering the sentences already being served by the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were shockingly inappropriate and warranted interference by the appeal court.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently with existing sentences as provided by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court failed to properly consider the sentences already being served by the appellants when imposing further lengthy sentences for similar offences. Both parties agreed that the cumulative effect of the sentences was disproportionate and shockingly inappropriate. The appeal court held that section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act required the trial court to consider ordering the sentences to run concurrently with existing sentences. The sentences were accordingly set aside and replaced with sentences that partially run concurrently with the previously imposed sentences, thereby tempering the overall period of imprisonment to ensure fairness and...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; sentences set aside and replaced with partially concurrent sentences.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds in part.
  • The sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment in respect of each appellant is set aside.