Oosthuizen and Another v S (180/2018) [2020] ZASCA 1 (21 January 2020)

Oosthuizen and Another v S (180/2018) [2020] ZASCA 1 (21 January 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the original order antedating the sentences to 25 August 2017 was a patent error. The intention was to antedate the sentences to 27 October 2017, in accordance with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court corrected the error to reflect its true intention and replaced the order of the court a quo with substituted convictions and sentences, specifying the correct antedating of sentences.

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 1
Parties
Appellant: Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen; Appellant: Theo Martinus Jackson; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Case Number
180/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with substituted convictions and sentences, with sentences antedated to 27 October 2017.
Judges
Van der Merwe, Plasket, Mbatha, Tsoka, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Kidnapping, Defeating the Ends of Justice, Sentencing, Correction of Patent Error
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Kidnapping Defeating the Ends of Justice Sentencing Correction of Patent Error

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen

Appellant

Theo Martinus Jackson

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the trial court were correctly antedated in accordance with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the order of the court a quo should be set aside and replaced with substituted convictions and sentences.
  3. 3 Whether the patent error in the date of antedating sentences should be corrected to reflect the true intention of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the original order antedating the sentences to 25 August 2017 was a patent error. The intention was to antedate the sentences to 27 October 2017, in accordance with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court corrected the error to reflect its true intention and replaced the order of the court a quo with substituted convictions and sentences, specifying the correct antedating of sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with substituted convictions and sentences, with sentences antedated to 27 October 2017.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following order: Both accused are found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 5) and kidnapping (count 4).