Moyo v The State (848/18) [2018] ZASCA 157; 2019 (1) SACR 605 (SCA) (23 November 2018)

Moyo v The State (848/18) [2018] ZASCA 157; 2019 (1) SACR 605 (SCA) (23 November 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to allow the appellant an opportunity to address the court before imposing the non-parole period and by not providing reasons for fixing the non-parole period. These failures constituted special circumstances required for the granting of special leave to appeal. The court held that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the effective sentence imposed on count 13. As the sentences on other counts were ordered to run concurrently with count 13, the Full Court must reconsider the cumulative effect of the effective sentence. The order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal was set...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 157
Parties
Appellant: Renio Moyo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Case Number
848/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal against the effective sentence imposed.
Judges
Cachalia, Wallis, Makgoka, Carelse, Matojane
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Non Parole Period, Special Circumstances, Sentencing Misdirection
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Non Parole Period Special Circumstances Sentencing Misdirection

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

Parties

Renio Moyo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal against the effective sentence imposed on the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by failing to allow the appellant to address the court before imposing the non-parole period.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court failed to provide reasons for fixing the non-parole period, constituting special circumstances for granting special leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to allow the appellant an opportunity to address the court before imposing the non-parole period and by not providing reasons for fixing the non-parole period. These failures constituted special circumstances required for the granting of special leave to appeal. The court held that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the effective sentence imposed on count 13. As the sentences on other counts were ordered to run concurrently with count 13, the Full Court must reconsider the cumulative effect of the effective sentence. The order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal was set...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal against the effective sentence imposed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the High Court refusing leave is set aside.