Mokhoabane v S (28/2005) [2012] ZAFSHC 136 (2 August 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZAFSHC 136
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- S. P. B. Hancke
- Case number
- 28/2005
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- S. P. B. Hancke
- Case number
- 28/2005
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, although the applicant was 20 years old at the time of the offences and his youth was considered, the gravity of the crimes—housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder of an 87-year-old victim—outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court had adequately addressed the applicant's personal circumstances and the period spent in custody. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would impose a different sentence. However, condonation for the late filing of the application was granted.
Court disposition
Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Orders
- The application for condonation is granted.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Buti Samson Mokhoabane
Applicant Counsel: J. D. ReynekeThe State
Respondent Counsel: M. Strauss03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder.
- 02
Whether the period spent in custody awaiting trial and the applicant's personal circumstances were adequately considered in sentencing.
- 03
Whether condonation for late filing of the application should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the trial court failed to consider the period he spent in custody awaiting trial and did not give sufficient weight to his personal circumstances, including his youth. He argues that the seriousness of the offences, community interest, prevalence of the crimes, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the planned nature of the attack were overemphasized.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's youth, and that the seriousness of the offences and the circumstances of the crime justified the sentences imposed. The respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal, arguing there are no reasonable prospects of success.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA)
Leave to appeal against sentence will only be granted if there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A)
In sentencing, the court must balance the seriousness of the offence, the interests of society, and the personal circumstances of the accused.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, although the applicant was 20 years old at the time of the offences and his youth was considered, the gravity of the crimes—housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder of an 87-year-old victim—outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court had adequately addressed the applicant's personal circumstances and the period spent in custody. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would impose a different sentence. However, condonation for the late filing of the application was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The brutality of the attack and the vulnerability of the victim were significant aggravating factors.
- The interests of society and the need for deterrence in cases of violent crime remain paramount.
Court disposition
Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
- The application for condonation is granted.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saak nommer. : 28/2005
In die aansoek tussen:
BUTI
SAMSON MOKHOABANE ..............................................Applikant
(Beskuldigde 2 in die hof a quo)
en
DIE STAAT ...........................................................................Respondent
_____________
UITSPRAAK: HANCKE,WND RP
GELEWER OP: 2 AUGUSTUS 2012
[1] Die applikant is op 25 April 2005 in die Rondgaande Hof te Virginia skuldig bevind aan aanklag 1 (huisbraak met die opset om te roof en roof met verswarende omstandighede), en aanklag 3 (moord).
[2] Ten opsigte aanklagte 1 is hy tot 15 jaar gevangenisstraf en lewenslange gevangenisstraf opgelê ten opsigte van aanklag 3. Hy doen nou aansoek om verlof om te appelleer slegs teen sy vonnis.
[3] ‘n Soortgelyke aansoek is alreeds gerig deur twee van sy mede-beskuldigdes, naamlik beskuldigdes 3 en 5, welke aansoek van die hand gewys is. Die applikant was tydens die verhoor beskuldigde 2 gewees.
[4] Die huidige aansoek is daarop gebasseer dat die hof a quo nie die tydperk wat die applikant verhoorafwagtend was in ag geneem het nie en ook nie genoegsame gewig geheg het aan sy persoonlike omstandighede nie. Daarteenoor is die volgende faktore, naamlik die erns van die misdade, die gemeenskapsbelang, die voorkoms van die misdade, afskrikking, vergelding en rehabilitasie en die beplande aanval volgens die applikant se betoog oorbeklemtoon.
[5] Die slagoffer in hierdie saak was 87 jaar oud gewees. Die beskuldigdes het op ‘n Saterdagmiddag tussen 13h15 en 14h00 helder oordag die oorledene se huis binnegedring en is die oorledene volgens die mediese getuienis vir ‘n geruime tyd gewurg. Die dokter het getuig dat maksimum geweld gebruik is ten opsigte van haar borskas en dat selfs op haar gespring is. Die oorledene se beserings het ingesluit kneusings, skaafplekke van die bors, regter-voorarm, die voorkom, gesig, agterkop, nek, frakture van die sleutelbeen en rug en was daar byna nie ‘n plek op haar liggaam waar sy nie beseer was nie.
[6] ‘n Gewigtige oorweging wat tel in die guns van die applikant is die feit dat hy tydens die voorval 20 jaar oud was. In die uitspraak is gehandel met die jeugdigheid van die applikant, en die ander beskuldigdes.
[7] Inaggenome egter al die feite en omstandighede is ek van mening dat daar nie redelike vooruitsigte is dat ‘n ander hof tot ‘n ander bevinding sal raak ten opsigte van vonnis nie. Daar is ook ‘n aansoek om kondonasie wat na mening toegestaan behoort te word.
[8] Bygevolg word die volgende bevele verleen:
8.1 Die aansoek om kondonasie word toegestaan;
8.2 Origens word die aansoek van die hand gewys.
_______
S. P. B. HANCKE, WND RP
Namens die applikant: Prokureur J. D. Reyneke
In opdrag van:
Bloemfontein Regsentrum
BLOEMFONTEIN
Namens die respondent: Adv. M. Strauss
Die Kantoor van die Direkteur:
Openbare Vervolgings
/eb
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.