S v Kellerman (218/96) [1996] ZASCA 139; ; [1997] 1 All SA 127 (A); (27 November 1996)

S v Kellerman (218/96) [1996] ZASCA 139; ; [1997] 1 All SA 127 (A); (27 November 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 310A of the Criminal Procedure Act did not abolish the established practice whereby, upon notice of appeal and notification by the State of its intention to seek sentence enhancement, the accused could not withdraw the appeal without leave of the appeal court. The appellant's purported withdrawal of his appeal was therefore invalid, and the court a quo was competent to consider and order an increase in sentence. The court further found that the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's abuse of his position as a police officer, and the absence of remorse justified the imposition of direct imprisonment. The application for condonation was...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: George Petrus Kellerman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1996
Case Number
218/96
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Condonation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused; increased sentences confirmed.
Judges
C.T. Howie, Hefer, Plewman
Legal Topics
Condonation, Sentence Increase on Appeal, Fraud, Criminal Procedure Act Section 310a
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Condonation Sentence Increase on Appeal Fraud Criminal Procedure Act Section 310a

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Petrus Kellerman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo was competent to increase the appellant's sentence after withdrawal of his appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the insertion of section 310A in the Criminal Procedure Act abolished the previous practice allowing the State to seek sentence enhancement when the accused appeals.
  3. 3 Whether the increased sentences imposed by the court a quo were appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 310A of the Criminal Procedure Act did not abolish the established practice whereby, upon notice of appeal and notification by the State of its intention to seek sentence enhancement, the accused could not withdraw the appeal without leave of the appeal court. The appellant's purported withdrawal of his appeal was therefore invalid, and the court a quo was competent to consider and order an increase in sentence. The court further found that the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's abuse of his position as a police officer, and the absence of remorse justified the imposition of direct imprisonment. The application for condonation was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused; increased sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • The appeal against the increased sentences is dismissed.