S v Goldman (63/88) [1989] ZASCA 104; [1990] 1 All SA 317 (A) (14 September 1989)

S v Goldman (63/88) [1989] ZASCA 104; [1990] 1 All SA 317 (A) (14 September 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was disturbingly inappropriate when compared to those imposed on his co-accused, particularly accused 1, who participated in all three robberies and was slightly older than the appellant. The court held that the disparity was not justified by differences in participation or personal circumstances. The appellant's role was not that of a leader, and his handling of the weapon was careful to avoid injury. The evidence did not support the finding that the appellant was the leader of the group. The court also considered the time already served by the appellant and the mitigating evidence presented by the clinical...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 104
Parties
Appellant: Lisle Goldman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 1989
Case Number
63/88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; sentence set aside and replaced with a fully suspended sentence.
Judges
J W Smalberger, Steyn, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Sentencing Disparity, Robbery, Individualisation of Sentence, Suspended Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Disparity Robbery Individualisation of Sentence Suspended Sentence

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

Parties

Lisle Goldman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was unjustifiably disparate compared to his co-accused.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's personal circumstances and degree of participation warranted a lesser sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate misdirected himself regarding the age and role of the appellant and co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was disturbingly inappropriate when compared to those imposed on his co-accused, particularly accused 1, who participated in all three robberies and was slightly older than the appellant. The court held that the disparity was not justified by differences in participation or personal circumstances. The appellant's role was not that of a leader, and his handling of the weapon was careful to avoid injury. The evidence did not support the finding that the appellant was the leader of the group. The court also considered the time already served by the appellant and the mitigating evidence presented by the clinical...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; sentence set aside and replaced with a fully suspended sentence.

Orders

  • The sentences imposed upon the appellant are set aside.
  • Both counts taken together for the purposes of sentence: 5 years imprisonment, the whole of which is suspended for 5 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of robbery or theft, or any attempt thereto, committed during the period of suspension.