S v Fourie (A319/2015, A466/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 513 (9 July 2015)

S v Fourie (A319/2015, A466/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 513 (9 July 2015)

The High Court found that the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was too harsh in the circumstances. The accused pleaded guilty, showed remorse, and there was no evidence of serious injuries to the complainants. The court accepted the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions' recommendation that one year of the sentence be suspended, resulting in an effective sentence of one year imprisonment. The court also ordered that the previously suspended sentence be operationalized, as the accused had a prior conviction of a similar nature and the suspension period had not yet elapsed.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 513
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Kerniels Manikie Fourie
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2015
Case Number
A319/2015, A466/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review of Sentence Imposed by Magistrate's Court
Outcome
The sentence of two years' imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of two years' imprisonment, of which one year is suspended for five years on condition of no further conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm or assault during the suspension period. The prosecutor is ordered to...
Judges
Kubushi, Strauss
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing Principles, Suspended Sentence, Review Procedure
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Sentencing Principles Suspended Sentence Review Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Kerniels Manikie Fourie

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review of Sentence Imposed by Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was appropriate and in accordance with justice.
  2. 2 Whether part of the sentence should be suspended given the circumstances of the offence and the accused's personal factors.
  3. 3 Whether the previously suspended sentence should be put into operation.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was too harsh in the circumstances. The accused pleaded guilty, showed remorse, and there was no evidence of serious injuries to the complainants. The court accepted the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions' recommendation that one year of the sentence be suspended, resulting in an effective sentence of one year imprisonment. The court also ordered that the previously suspended sentence be operationalized, as the accused had a prior conviction of a similar nature and the suspension period had not yet elapsed.

Court Disposition

The sentence of two years' imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of two years' imprisonment, of which one year is suspended for five years on condition of no further conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm or assault during the suspension period. The prosecutor is ordered to...

Orders

  • The sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate's Court, Cullinan, is set aside and substituted with: 'The accused is sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. Half of the sentence, that is one (1) year, is suspended for a period of five (5) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of...
  • The prosecutor is ordered to bring an application to operationalize the previously suspended sentence.