S v Hlongwa and Others (Sentence) (CC76/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 115 (18 October 2023)

S v Hlongwa and Others (Sentence) (CC76/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 115 (18 October 2023)

The court found that the personal circumstances of the accused, including poverty, lack of education, and unfortunate backgrounds, are common in South Africa and do not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences. The youthfulness of accused 2 was considered but found insufficient to warrant a lesser sentence, as he was not a juvenile and had demonstrated adult responsibility. None of the accused showed genuine remorse, having advanced false defences and failed to take the court into their confidence. The court imposed the minimum sentences prescribed by law, ensuring that concurrent sentencing would prevent unfair...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 115
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Lindani Theophilus Hlongwa; Respondent: Fanele Dlomo; Respondent: Mlungisi Innocent Baxter
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Case Number
CC76/2022P
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence
Outcome
Minimum sentences imposed; sentences for kidnapping, attempted murder, and robbery with aggravating circumstances to run concurrently with life imprisonment for murder.
Judges
Mossop
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Murder, Attempted Murder, Kidnapping, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Personal Circumstances in Sentencing
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Murder Attempted Murder Kidnapping Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Personal Circumstances in Sentencing

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Lindani Theophilus Hlongwa

Respondent

Fanele Dlomo

Respondent

Mlungisi Innocent Baxter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal circumstances of the accused constitute substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences.
  2. 2 Whether youthfulness of accused 2 is a mitigating factor under the minimum sentencing regime.
  3. 3 Whether the accused have shown genuine remorse for their conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the personal circumstances of the accused, including poverty, lack of education, and unfortunate backgrounds, are common in South Africa and do not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences. The youthfulness of accused 2 was considered but found insufficient to warrant a lesser sentence, as he was not a juvenile and had demonstrated adult responsibility. None of the accused showed genuine remorse, having advanced false defences and failed to take the court into their confidence. The court imposed the minimum sentences prescribed by law, ensuring that concurrent sentencing would prevent unfair...

Court Disposition

Minimum sentences imposed; sentences for kidnapping, attempted murder, and robbery with aggravating circumstances to run concurrently with life imprisonment for murder.

Orders

  • Accused 1: Sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for kidnapping (counts 1 and 2, taken as one), life imprisonment for murder (count 3), 15 years' imprisonment for attempted murder (count 4), and 15 years' imprisonment for robbery with aggravating circumstances (count 5). Sentences on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 to run...
  • Accused 2: Sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for kidnapping (counts 1 and 2, taken as one), life imprisonment for murder (count 3), 12 years' imprisonment for attempted murder (count 4). No order under section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act.