S v Fakude and Others (645/98) [1999] ZASCA 83 (19 November 1999)

S v Fakude and Others (645/98) [1999] ZASCA 83 (19 November 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had properly weighed the seriousness of the crime, the personal circumstances of the accused, and the interests of society. The gravity of the murder and the need for deterrence justified prioritizing retributive and deterrent sentences over rehabilitation. The disparity between the sentence imposed on accused 1 and those imposed on accused 3 and 4 was unjustified, as the evidence did not establish that accused 1 was more culpable than the others. The reduction of sentence for accused 5 was not justified by the facts, as financial inducement is an aggravating factor and no clear evidence of remorse was presented. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: Amynd Shahnaz Fakude; Appellant: Dumile Elliot Nduki; Appellant: Sipho Thomas Mlandu; Appellant: Morris Masikhisane Ntshantshu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 1999
Case Number
645/98
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal of accused 1 upheld; sentence reduced to 25 years imprisonment and antedated to 13 February 1997. Appeals of accused 3, 4, and 5 dismissed.
Judges
Marais, Streicher, Mpati
Legal Topics
Sentencing Disparity, Murder, Mitigating Factors, Remorse, Conspiracy to Murder
Criminal Law Sentencing Disparity Murder Mitigating Factors Remorse Conspiracy to 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amynd Shahnaz Fakude

Appellant

Dumile Elliot Nduki

Appellant

Sipho Thomas Mlandu

Appellant

Morris Masikhisane Ntshantshu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were unjustifiably disparate for the same crime.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge gave appropriate weight to the personal circumstances of the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of remorse was correctly considered in sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had properly weighed the seriousness of the crime, the personal circumstances of the accused, and the interests of society. The gravity of the murder and the need for deterrence justified prioritizing retributive and deterrent sentences over rehabilitation. The disparity between the sentence imposed on accused 1 and those imposed on accused 3 and 4 was unjustified, as the evidence did not establish that accused 1 was more culpable than the others. The reduction of sentence for accused 5 was not justified by the facts, as financial inducement is an aggravating factor and no clear evidence of remorse was presented. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal of accused 1 upheld; sentence reduced to 25 years imprisonment and antedated to 13 February 1997. Appeals of accused 3, 4, and 5 dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of accused 1 against the sentence of 35 years imprisonment is upheld and her sentence is reduced to 25 years imprisonment.
  • The sentence is antedated to 13 February 1997.