M.P and Others v S (CA152/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 2 (10 January 2017)

M.P and Others v S (CA152/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 2 (10 January 2017)

The court held that the sentencing court gave due regard to all relevant factors in sentencing the first appellant, including his age, lack of previous convictions, and the seriousness of the offences. The sentence of ten years' imprisonment was found to be proportional to the crimes committed and the needs of society, and constituted the shortest appropriate period in the circumstances. However, the court below erred by not antedating the sentence to account for the time spent in custody awaiting trial, as required by the Child Justice Act. The disparity between the sentences of the second and third appellants was justified due to differences in age, plea, remorse, and previous...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 2
Parties
Appellant: M. P.; Appellant: Ricardo Lomberg; Appellant: Nethaniel Blouw; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 January 2017
Case Number
CA152/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
First appellant's appeal against sentence partially succeeds; sentence confirmed but antedated. Third appellant's appeal dismissed. Former second appellant's sentence reviewed and antedated.
Judges
N G Beshe, FBA Dawood, N Gqamana
Legal Topics
Child Justice Act, Sentencing of Children, Proportionality of Sentence, Effective Imprisonment, Review of Sentence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Child Justice Act Sentencing of Children Proportionality of Sentence Effective Imprisonment Review of 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. P.

Appellant

Ricardo Lomberg

Appellant

Nethaniel Blouw

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the first appellant, a child at the time of the offence, was unjust, shockingly inappropriate, and severe.
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing court erred by not antedating the sentence to account for time spent in custody awaiting trial.
  3. 3 Whether the disparity between the sentences of the second and third appellants was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sentencing court gave due regard to all relevant factors in sentencing the first appellant, including his age, lack of previous convictions, and the seriousness of the offences. The sentence of ten years' imprisonment was found to be proportional to the crimes committed and the needs of society, and constituted the shortest appropriate period in the circumstances. However, the court below erred by not antedating the sentence to account for the time spent in custody awaiting trial, as required by the Child Justice Act. The disparity between the sentences of the second and third appellants was justified due to differences in age, plea, remorse, and previous...

Court Disposition

First appellant's appeal against sentence partially succeeds; sentence confirmed but antedated. Third appellant's appeal dismissed. Former second appellant's sentence reviewed and antedated.

Orders

  • The sentence of an effective term of imprisonment for ten years imposed on the first appellant is confirmed but antedated to the date of his arrest.
  • The third appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.