S v Kgosimore (635/98) [1999] ZASCA 63 (16 September 1999)

S v Kgosimore (635/98) [1999] ZASCA 63 (16 September 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to interfere with sentence on appeal is the same whether the appeal is brought by the State or the accused. The court found no juridical basis for a stricter test when the State appeals. The trial court's sentence of 5 years suspended imprisonment was wholly inappropriate given the seriousness and premeditation of the offence, and the court a quo was justified in substituting a sentence of 9 years imprisonment. The appellate court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and emotional turmoil, but concluded that the substituted sentence was neither disturbingly severe nor...

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Stephan Mudupe Kgosimore; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 1999
Case Number
635/98
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 9 years imprisonment confirmed.
Judges
Scott, Streicher, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Murder, Attempted Murder, Sentencing Discretion, Premeditation, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Murder Attempted Murder Sentencing Discretion Premeditation Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

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

Parties

Stephan Mudupe Kgosimore

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court of appeal has the same power to interfere with sentence in an appeal by the State as in an appeal by the accused.
  2. 2 Whether the substituted sentence of 9 years imprisonment is disturbingly severe or disturbingly lenient.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court failed to give proper weight to aggravating and mitigating factors.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to interfere with sentence on appeal is the same whether the appeal is brought by the State or the accused. The court found no juridical basis for a stricter test when the State appeals. The trial court's sentence of 5 years suspended imprisonment was wholly inappropriate given the seriousness and premeditation of the offence, and the court a quo was justified in substituting a sentence of 9 years imprisonment. The appellate court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and emotional turmoil, but concluded that the substituted sentence was neither disturbingly severe nor...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence of 9 years imprisonment confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed by the court a quo is confirmed.