Preston and Another v S (A68/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 221 (20 October 2011)

Preston and Another v S (A68/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 221 (20 October 2011)

The appellate court found that the trial court materially misdirected itself in sentencing both appellants by imposing sentences disproportionate to the crimes and circumstances. The trial court erred in finding an absence of sincere remorse in respect of appellant no 2, who demonstrated genuine appreciation of the consequences of her actions. The appellate court was thus entitled to reconsider the sentences afresh, applying the objectives of punishment and balancing the personal circumstances of the appellants, including the interests of their minor children, against the seriousness of the offences and societal interests. The sentences were reduced to twelve years' imprisonment for...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 221
Parties
Appellant: N.P. Preston; Appellant: S.P. Badenhorst; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Case Number
A68/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence succeeds; sentences reduced.
Judges
Meyer, Makhanya
Legal Topics
Fraud, Sentencing Principles, Misdirection in Sentencing, Remorse, Mitigation of Sentence
Criminal Law Fraud Sentencing Principles Misdirection in Sentencing Remorse Mitigation 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.P. Preston

Appellant

S.P. Badenhorst

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court materially misdirected itself in imposing sentence on each appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were disproportionate to the crimes and circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of sincere remorse was correctly found in respect of appellant no 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court materially misdirected itself in sentencing both appellants by imposing sentences disproportionate to the crimes and circumstances. The trial court erred in finding an absence of sincere remorse in respect of appellant no 2, who demonstrated genuine appreciation of the consequences of her actions. The appellate court was thus entitled to reconsider the sentences afresh, applying the objectives of punishment and balancing the personal circumstances of the appellants, including the interests of their minor children, against the seriousness of the offences and societal interests. The sentences were reduced to twelve years' imprisonment for...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence succeeds; sentences reduced.

Orders

  • The sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment imposed upon appellant no 1 is set aside and replaced with a sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment.
  • The sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment imposed upon appellant no 2 is set aside and replaced with a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.