Mkhungo and Another v S (AR455/14) [2015] ZAKZPHC 40 (3 August 2015)

Mkhungo and Another v S (AR455/14) [2015] ZAKZPHC 40 (3 August 2015)

The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviating from the prescribed minimum sentences of life imprisonment for murder and multiple rapes. The trial Judge correctly considered the personal circumstances of the appellants, the nature and brutality of the offences, and the lack of remorse. The responses of the appellants to the DNA evidence and their attempts to avoid liability were disturbing indicators of their indifference to the suffering of their victims. The trial Judge did not misdirect himself, and the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The appeals against the sentences were therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZAKZPHC 40
Parties
Appellant: Vuyani Samkelo Mkhungo; Appellant: Sibonelo Cyprian Myeza; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2015
Case Number
AR455/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
The appeals against the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants are dismissed and the sentences are confirmed.
Judges
Olsen, Van Zÿl, V Naidoo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Life Imprisonment, Murder, Rape, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Life Imprisonment Murder Rape Criminal Law Amendment Act Appeal Against 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vuyani Samkelo Mkhungo

Appellant

Sibonelo Cyprian Myeza

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants for murder and multiple rapes were justified under the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether there were substantial and compelling circumstances warranting deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences.
  3. 3 Whether the trial Judge misdirected himself in imposing the sentences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviating from the prescribed minimum sentences of life imprisonment for murder and multiple rapes. The trial Judge correctly considered the personal circumstances of the appellants, the nature and brutality of the offences, and the lack of remorse. The responses of the appellants to the DNA evidence and their attempts to avoid liability were disturbing indicators of their indifference to the suffering of their victims. The trial Judge did not misdirect himself, and the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The appeals against the sentences were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appeals against the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants are dismissed and the sentences are confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeals against the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants on 27 May 2013 are dismissed.
  • The sentences of life imprisonment are confirmed.