Morake v S (A431/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 692 (29 September 2020)

Morake v S (A431/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 692 (29 September 2020)

The court found that, although the murder was premeditated and brutal, the appellant's actions were motivated by a genuine belief in witchcraft and fear for his own and his family's safety. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his lack of financial motive, his role as a provider, and the absence of prior violent convictions, were considered cumulatively with his fear to constitute substantial and compelling circumstances. The trial court failed to properly assess these factors and misdirected itself in sentencing. Accordingly, the appellate court held that a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence was justified and imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment,...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 692
Parties
Appellant: Tsepo Michael Morake; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2020
Case Number
A431/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld in part; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment, backdated to 24 July 2012.
Judges
N Davis, LGP Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Murder, Minimum Sentencing, Witchcraft Related Offences, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Murder Minimum Sentencing Witchcraft Related Offences Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Appeal Against Sentence

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsepo Michael Morake

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for premeditated murder should be imposed or whether substantial and compelling circumstances justify deviation.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's belief in witchcraft and fear for himself and his family constitute substantial and compelling circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in its approach to sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the murder was premeditated and brutal, the appellant's actions were motivated by a genuine belief in witchcraft and fear for his own and his family's safety. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his lack of financial motive, his role as a provider, and the absence of prior violent convictions, were considered cumulatively with his fear to constitute substantial and compelling circumstances. The trial court failed to properly assess these factors and misdirected itself in sentencing. Accordingly, the appellate court held that a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence was justified and imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment,...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld in part; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and replaced with 20 years' imprisonment, backdated to 24 July 2012.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld in part.
  • The sentence of life imprisonment in respect of count 1 is set aside and replaced with a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, backdated to 24 July 2012.