S v Jwara (A841/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 890 (12 November 2015)

S v Jwara (A841/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 890 (12 November 2015)

The court found that it is competent for a court to order that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment, but only the imprisonment portion can run concurrently. The concurrency order must specify that sentences will run concurrently only if the imprisonment is served. The previous order was set aside and replaced to clarify that the 12 months imprisonment imposed in the current matter will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, but only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 890
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Bulelani Jwara
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2015
Case Number
A841/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review
Outcome
The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with a clarified order regarding concurrency.
Judges
H.J Fabricius, J.J Strijdom
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Sentencing Concurrency, Criminal Procedure Act Section 280, Parole Revocation
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Concurrency Criminal Procedure Act Section 280 Parole Revocation

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

Parties

The State

Applicant

Bulelani Jwara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was in accordance with justice.
  2. 2 Whether a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  3. 3 Whether the concurrency order was correctly formulated given the accused's parole status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it is competent for a court to order that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment, but only the imprisonment portion can run concurrently. The concurrency order must specify that sentences will run concurrently only if the imprisonment is served. The previous order was set aside and replaced to clarify that the 12 months imprisonment imposed in the current matter will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, but only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.

Court Disposition

The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with a clarified order regarding concurrency.

Orders

  • The sentence is set aside and replaced with twelve (12) months imprisonment.
  • This sentence will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.