Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 87 (3 March 2021)

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 87 (3 March 2021)

The court found that the warning statements of the second and third appellants were admissible, as they were properly informed of their constitutional rights and made the statements voluntarily, despite electing to have legal representation and to remain silent. The evidence, including admissions, pointing out, and possession of stolen property, was sufficient to support the convictions. The sentence imposed for contravention of the Immigration Act exceeded the statutory maximum and was corrected to two years imprisonment. The prescribed minimum sentences for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery, and for murder, were properly applied, as no substantial and compelling circumstances...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 87
Parties
Appellant: Ramaloko, Lebogang; Appellant: Motlokoa, Lelefa; Appellant: Maimane, Thabiso; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2021
Case Number
A60/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentences for counts 1 and 2 dismissed; appeal against sentence for count 3 upheld and substituted.
Judges
Mosopa, Mabunda
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Warning Statements, Minimum Sentencing, Doctrine of Recent Possession, Right to Silence, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Admissibility of Warning Statements Minimum Sentencing Doctrine of Recent Possession Right to Silence Fair Trial Rights

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 8 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramaloko, Lebogang

Appellant

Motlokoa, Lelefa

Appellant

Maimane, Thabiso

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warning statements of the second and third appellants were admissible.
  2. 2 Whether the state led sufficient evidence to convict the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the warning statements of the second and third appellants were admissible, as they were properly informed of their constitutional rights and made the statements voluntarily, despite electing to have legal representation and to remain silent. The evidence, including admissions, pointing out, and possession of stolen property, was sufficient to support the convictions. The sentence imposed for contravention of the Immigration Act exceeded the statutory maximum and was corrected to two years imprisonment. The prescribed minimum sentences for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery, and for murder, were properly applied, as no substantial and compelling circumstances...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentences for counts 1 and 2 dismissed; appeal against sentence for count 3 upheld and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • Appeal against count 1 and 2 is dismissed.