S v Bodibe (4/01) [2001] ZANWHC 5 (1 February 2001)

S v Bodibe (4/01) [2001] ZANWHC 5 (1 February 2001)

The court found that the accused were convicted under a repealed statute and amended the conviction to reflect the correct legislation, the Correctional Service Act No 111 of 1998. The sentences imposed by the magistrate were found to be harsh and disparate, particularly for Accused No 6, whose sentence was disturbingly inappropriate given the circumstances. All accused played an equal role in the attempted escape, and except for Accused No 6, their previous convictions were not relevant to the present offence. The court held that the sentences for Accused Nos 3, 5, 7, and 8 were too severe and not in accordance with justice. The conviction was confirmed under the correct Act, the...

Citation
[2001] ZANWHC 5
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Ben Bodibe; Respondent: Barnard Ntshumeko; Respondent: Reuben Oupa Matshego; Respondent: Sello Moses James; Respondent: July Mbatha; Respondent: John Seuntjie Motsisi
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2001
Case Number
4/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction confirmed under the correct Act; sentences for Accused Nos 3, 5, 7, and 8 reduced to one year imprisonment each; sentence for Accused No 6 reduced to 18 months imprisonment; sentence for Accused No 1 confirmed.
Judges
M M Leeuw
Legal Topics
Attempted Escape, Sentencing Disparity, Correctional Services Act, Review of Magistrate Decision
Criminal Law Attempted Escape Sentencing Disparity Correctional Services Act Review of Magistrate Decision

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Ben Bodibe

Respondent

Barnard Ntshumeko

Respondent

Reuben Oupa Matshego

Respondent

Sello Moses James

Respondent

July Mbatha

Respondent

John Seuntjie Motsisi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were convicted under the correct legislation.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and just under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether there was unjustified disparity in sentencing among the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused were convicted under a repealed statute and amended the conviction to reflect the correct legislation, the Correctional Service Act No 111 of 1998. The sentences imposed by the magistrate were found to be harsh and disparate, particularly for Accused No 6, whose sentence was disturbingly inappropriate given the circumstances. All accused played an equal role in the attempted escape, and except for Accused No 6, their previous convictions were not relevant to the present offence. The court held that the sentences for Accused Nos 3, 5, 7, and 8 were too severe and not in accordance with justice. The conviction was confirmed under the correct Act, the...

Court Disposition

Conviction confirmed under the correct Act; sentences for Accused Nos 3, 5, 7, and 8 reduced to one year imprisonment each; sentence for Accused No 6 reduced to 18 months imprisonment; sentence for Accused No 1 confirmed.

Orders

  • Conviction of Accused Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 amended to contravention of section 48(1)(a) of Act 111 of 1998 (attempted escape from lawful custody).
  • Sentence for Accused No 1 confirmed: one year imprisonment.