Mofokane v S (A343/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 498 (4 September 2020)

Mofokane v S (A343/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 498 (4 September 2020)

The appeal was limited to sentence only. The court found that the minimum sentencing legislation was not applicable to the attempted murder charge as the State did not invoke it in the charge sheet or rely on it during prosecution. The appellant's argument that he would have conducted his defence differently was not supported by any specifics or evidence. The seriousness of the offences, particularly the attempted murder of a uniformed police officer with an unlicensed firearm, was considered aggravating. The court found the sentences imposed—10 years for attempted murder and 10 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm, with 5 years running concurrently—were reasonable and not...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 498
Parties
Appellant: Tiego Makofane; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2020
Case Number
A343/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Judges
FMM Snyman, CJ van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Attempted Murder, Possession of Unlicensed Firearm, Firearms Control Act
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Attempted Murder Possession of Unlicensed Firearm Firearms Control Act

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tiego Makofane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing court erred by not applying minimum sentencing legislation to the charge of attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were harsh and disproportionate to the crimes and the appellant's circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's lack of knowledge of minimum sentencing legislation affected the fairness of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was limited to sentence only. The court found that the minimum sentencing legislation was not applicable to the attempted murder charge as the State did not invoke it in the charge sheet or rely on it during prosecution. The appellant's argument that he would have conducted his defence differently was not supported by any specifics or evidence. The seriousness of the offences, particularly the attempted murder of a uniformed police officer with an unlicensed firearm, was considered aggravating. The court found the sentences imposed—10 years for attempted murder and 10 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm, with 5 years running concurrently—were reasonable and not...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
  • The appellant is declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.