Mnomezulu v S (A206/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 797 (9 November 2017)

Mnomezulu v S (A206/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 797 (9 November 2017)

The court found that the trial court had properly considered the personal circumstances of the appellant, the seriousness of the offence, and the interests of society. The prescribed minimum sentence was neither unjust nor disproportionate in the circumstances, and no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence. However, the offences were sufficiently linked in terms of locality, time, and perpetrator to warrant the sentences running concurrently. The court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with an order that the sentences for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and murder run concurrently, and that the sentence be antedated.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 797
Parties
Appellant: Bafana Elliot Mnomezulu; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2017
Case Number
A206/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence partially upheld; sentences to run concurrently.
Judges
S.A.M. Baqwa, P. Phahlane
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Dolus Eventualis
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Concurrent Sentences Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Dolus Eventualis

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bafana Elliot Mnomezulu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was shockingly harsh and disproportionate.
  2. 2 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a departure from the prescribed minimum sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences for the two counts should have been ordered to run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court had properly considered the personal circumstances of the appellant, the seriousness of the offence, and the interests of society. The prescribed minimum sentence was neither unjust nor disproportionate in the circumstances, and no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence. However, the offences were sufficiently linked in terms of locality, time, and perpetrator to warrant the sentences running concurrently. The court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with an order that the sentences for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and murder run concurrently, and that the sentence be antedated.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence partially upheld; sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The sentence handed down by the trial court on 13 May 2015 is set aside and substituted with six months imprisonment on count 1 and fifteen years imprisonment on count 2.
  • It is ordered that the sentences run concurrently in terms of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.