R.M v S (180/2003) [2016] ZAECMHC 14 (12 April 2016)

R.M v S (180/2003) [2016] ZAECMHC 14 (12 April 2016)

The court found that the sentencing court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the appellant's youth at the time of the offences and by ordering concurrency with an uncertain term of imprisonment. The appellant was a child when the offences were committed, but an adult with a relevant previous conviction at sentencing. The individual sentences for murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's circumstances. However, the cumulative effect of 45 years' imprisonment was unduly severe and required amelioration. The court determined that portions of the sentences should run concurrently with the sentence...

Citation
[2016] ZAECMHC 14
Parties
Appellant: R. M.; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2016
Case Number
180/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to Full Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld to the limited extent that portions of the sentences are to run concurrently with the previous sentence and are antedated.
Judges
G H Bloem, D Van Zyl, S M Mbenenge
Legal Topics
Sentencing of Children, Concurrent Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder, Attempted Murder
Criminal Law Sentencing of Children Concurrent Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Attempted Murder

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. M.

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing court erred by failing to consider the appellant's youth at the time of the offences.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed should run concurrently given that the offences arose from the same incident.
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences is shockingly inappropriate and requires amelioration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentencing court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the appellant's youth at the time of the offences and by ordering concurrency with an uncertain term of imprisonment. The appellant was a child when the offences were committed, but an adult with a relevant previous conviction at sentencing. The individual sentences for murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's circumstances. However, the cumulative effect of 45 years' imprisonment was unduly severe and required amelioration. The court determined that portions of the sentences should run concurrently with the sentence...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld to the limited extent that portions of the sentences are to run concurrently with the previous sentence and are antedated.

Orders

  • Eight years of the twenty-year sentence for murder, eight years of the fifteen-year sentence for attempted murder, and the entire ten-year sentence for attempted robbery are to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on 11 November 2002 by the regional court of Mitchell's Square, Cape Town under case number SHA...
  • The sentences are antedated to 20 May 2004.