Phosha v S (A933/2007) [2014] ZAGPJHC 148 (17 July 2014)

Phosha v S (A933/2007) [2014] ZAGPJHC 148 (17 July 2014)

The court found that the offences of rape and attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances were committed in close proximity in terms of time and place. The sentencing court erred by ordering only half of the attempted robbery sentence to run concurrently with the rape sentence. The appellate court held that the entire sentence for attempted robbery should run concurrently with the sentence for rape, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment. The misdirection by the court a quo justified the appellate court's intervention and substitution of the sentence.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 148
Parties
Appellant: Lawrence Mpho Phosha; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Case Number
A933/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence on count 2 set aside and substituted.
Judges
C. J. Claassen, PP Molefe
Legal Topics
Rape, Attempted Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Minimum Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Rape Attempted Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Minimum Sentencing Concurrent Sentences

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

Lawrence Mpho Phosha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence for attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances should run concurrently with the sentence for rape.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo misdirected itself in ordering only half of the attempted robbery sentence to run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the offences of rape and attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances were committed in close proximity in terms of time and place. The sentencing court erred by ordering only half of the attempted robbery sentence to run concurrently with the rape sentence. The appellate court held that the entire sentence for attempted robbery should run concurrently with the sentence for rape, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment. The misdirection by the court a quo justified the appellate court's intervention and substitution of the sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence on count 2 set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The accused is sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on count 2, which is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment on the first count.
  • In effect, the accused is sentenced to a period of fifteen years’ imprisonment.