Moeng v S (A381/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 933 (19 December 2018)

Moeng v S (A381/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 933 (19 December 2018)

The court found that the second murder was not premeditated, as it was committed impulsively and without opportunity for planning, immediately following the first murder. The finding of premeditation was set aside, and the prescribed minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment applied to both counts. The court further held that substantial and compelling circumstances existed for both counts, given the appellant's personal circumstances and the context of the offences. Consequently, the sentences were reduced to ten years' imprisonment on each count, with five years of the sentence on count two to run concurrently with count one, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years'...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 933
Parties
Appellant: Sibusiso Blessing Moeng; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Case Number
A381/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentences reduced and ordered to run partly concurrently.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, A.T. Mathunzi
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Premeditated Murder, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Premeditated Murder Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Concurrent Sentences

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Blessing Moeng

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second murder was premeditated for purposes of minimum sentencing legislation.
  2. 2 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum for both counts.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in imposing different findings regarding substantial and compelling circumstances for the two counts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second murder was not premeditated, as it was committed impulsively and without opportunity for planning, immediately following the first murder. The finding of premeditation was set aside, and the prescribed minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment applied to both counts. The court further held that substantial and compelling circumstances existed for both counts, given the appellant's personal circumstances and the context of the offences. Consequently, the sentences were reduced to ten years' imprisonment on each count, with five years of the sentence on count two to run concurrently with count one, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years'...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentences reduced and ordered to run partly concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld.
  • The sentence imposed by the court a quo is set aside.