Mogane v S (A38/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1 (9 January 2014)

Mogane v S (A38/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1 (9 January 2014)

The court found that there was sufficient compliance with Section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944, as the appellant's legal representative confirmed that no assessors were needed and this was noted by the magistrate. The court also held that the appellant was properly informed of the minimum sentence provisions under Section 51 (2) of Act 105 of 1997 at his first appearance, as recorded by the magistrate. The trial court did not misdirect itself in finding that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence. The appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1
Parties
Appellant: Nicolas Mogane; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 January 2014
Case Number
A38/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Twala, Fourie
Legal Topics
Murder, Minimum Sentences, Constitution of Court, Assessors, Magistrates Courts Act, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Murder Minimum Sentences Constitution of Court Assessors Magistrates Courts Act Criminal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolas Mogane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by not summoning assessors in terms of Section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was properly informed that the State would rely on the minimum sentence provisions under Section 51 of Act 105 of 1997.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was sufficient compliance with Section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944, as the appellant's legal representative confirmed that no assessors were needed and this was noted by the magistrate. The court also held that the appellant was properly informed of the minimum sentence provisions under Section 51 (2) of Act 105 of 1997 at his first appearance, as recorded by the magistrate. The trial court did not misdirect itself in finding that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence. The appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.