S v Davids and Another (SS12/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 406 (10 June 2022)

S v Davids and Another (SS12/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 406 (10 June 2022)

The court found that both accused acted in concert, with direct intent to kill two individuals and reckless disregard for the lives of bystanders, resulting in the death of an innocent woman and injury to others. While the offences were extremely serious and public interest demanded harsh punishment, the court identified substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Specifically, the deceased was not the intended target, and the accused did not form a direct intention to kill her. The context of gang-related violence and the accuseds' backgrounds were considered. Accused 1's previous conviction for murder warranted...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 406
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Davids, Jermane Lloyd; Defendant: Shimidu Ottie
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2022
Case Number
SS12/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing After Conviction
Outcome
Both accused convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment; sentences for certain counts to run concurrently.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Minimum Sentencing, Gang Related Violence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Minimum Sentencing Gang Related Violence

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Davids, Jermane Lloyd

Defendant

Shimidu Ottie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Sentencing After Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
  2. 2 What are the appropriate sentences for each accused given their personal circumstances and previous convictions.
  3. 3 How should the cumulative effect of multiple convictions be addressed in sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both accused acted in concert, with direct intent to kill two individuals and reckless disregard for the lives of bystanders, resulting in the death of an innocent woman and injury to others. While the offences were extremely serious and public interest demanded harsh punishment, the court identified substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Specifically, the deceased was not the intended target, and the accused did not form a direct intention to kill her. The context of gang-related violence and the accuseds' backgrounds were considered. Accused 1's previous conviction for murder warranted...

Court Disposition

Both accused convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment; sentences for certain counts to run concurrently.

Orders

  • Accused 1 is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for murder, 5 years each for three counts of attempted murder, 5 years for unlawful possession of a firearm, and 2 years for unlawful possession of ammunition; sentences on counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 to run concurrently with count 1; 3 years of count 4 to run concurrently...
  • Accused 2 is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for murder, 5 years each for three counts of attempted murder, 5 years for unlawful possession of a firearm, and 2 years for unlawful possession of ammunition; sentences on counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 to run concurrently with count 1; 3 years of count 4 to run concurrently...