Mvubu v S (518/2016) [2016] ZASCA 184 (29 November 2016)

Mvubu v S (518/2016) [2016] ZASCA 184 (29 November 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 276B(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for the imposition of a non-parole period, does not apply retrospectively to offences committed before its commencement in 2004. The full bench's imposition of a non-parole period was therefore a fatal misdirection and had to be set aside. The court further found that the sentences imposed for attempted murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances were excessive and shockingly inappropriate, particularly given the appellant's age, status as a first offender, and the fact that all offences arose from a single incident. The cumulative effect of the sentences, resulting in an effective term...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 184
Parties
Appellant: Bongokwakhe Bonginkosi Mvubu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Case Number
518/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision on Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentences set aside and substituted with lesser terms, resulting in an effective term of 30 years' imprisonment.
Judges
Leach, Tshiqi, Zondi, Schoeman, Schippers
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Non Parole Period, Minimum Sentences, Attempted Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Non Parole Period Minimum Sentences Attempted Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongokwakhe Bonginkosi Mvubu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision on Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for attempted murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances were justified.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effective term of imprisonment (a 'Methuselah sentence') was appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the full bench was correct in imposing a non-parole period under section 276B(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 276B(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for the imposition of a non-parole period, does not apply retrospectively to offences committed before its commencement in 2004. The full bench's imposition of a non-parole period was therefore a fatal misdirection and had to be set aside. The court further found that the sentences imposed for attempted murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances were excessive and shockingly inappropriate, particularly given the appellant's age, status as a first offender, and the fact that all offences arose from a single incident. The cumulative effect of the sentences, resulting in an effective term...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentences set aside and substituted with lesser terms, resulting in an effective term of 30 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal against the sentences in respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 is successful, and those sentences are set aside and substituted as follows: counts 1, 2 and 4 – 10 years' imprisonment each; count 3 – 15 years' imprisonment; count 5 – 5 years' imprisonment; count 9 – 20 years' imprisonment; count 10 –...
  • All sentences in respect of counts 1, 2, 4 and 10 are to run concurrently with the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment imposed on count 9.