Roman and Another v S (A390/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 230 (1 August 2008)

Roman and Another v S (A390/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 230 (1 August 2008)

The Court found that the appellant's right to appeal was unaffected by the previous order refusing a petition, as no petition had been launched and no jurisdictional requirement for such existed. The magistrate had correctly found substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the minimum sentence, but failed to consider the cumulative effect of imposing two consecutive sentences for closely related offences. Given the appellant's youth, clean record, and the opportunistic nature of the robberies, the total sentence of fourteen years was excessive and induced a sense of shock. The Court held that justice required a substantial portion of the sentence on count 2 to run...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 230
Parties
Appellant: Charles Roman; Appellant: Gershwin Sauls; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2008
Case Number
A390/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence substituted.
Judges
Bozalek, Samela
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Concurrent Sentences, Minimum Sentences, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Concurrent Sentences Minimum Sentences Substantial and Compelling Circumstances

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Roman

Appellant

Gershwin Sauls

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's appeal against sentence is properly before the Court.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate induces a sense of shock and is appropriate given the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences on both counts should run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellant's right to appeal was unaffected by the previous order refusing a petition, as no petition had been launched and no jurisdictional requirement for such existed. The magistrate had correctly found substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the minimum sentence, but failed to consider the cumulative effect of imposing two consecutive sentences for closely related offences. Given the appellant's youth, clean record, and the opportunistic nature of the robberies, the total sentence of fourteen years was excessive and induced a sense of shock. The Court held that justice required a substantial portion of the sentence on count 2 to run...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld.
  • The sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 are confirmed: seven years imprisonment on each count.