S v M (11/1988) [1988] ZASCA 11; [1988] 4 All SA 456 (AD) (11 March 1988)

S v M (11/1988) [1988] ZASCA 11; [1988] 4 All SA 456 (AD) (11 March 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in placing the onus on the accused to prove he was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. The provisions of section 277(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act create independent grounds for judicial discretion in sentencing, and the accused's age is a factual matter for the court to determine, not a burden for the accused to discharge. Section 337 provides a mechanism for the court to assess age in the absence of evidence, and where uncertainty remains, it must benefit the accused. The trial court's failure to exercise its discretion due to an erroneous view of the law resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Given the real...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 11
Parties
Appellant: B.R.M.; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 1988
Case Number
11/1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds to the extent that the death sentence is set aside and replaced with 12 years' imprisonment.
Judges
Hoexter, Hefer, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Death Penalty, Burden of Proof, Assessment of Age
Criminal Law Sentencing Death Penalty Burden of Proof Assessment of Age

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

Parties

B.R.M.

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the onus to prove the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence rests on the accused or the State.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly found no extenuating circumstances and imposed the death sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in placing the onus on the accused to prove he was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. The provisions of section 277(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act create independent grounds for judicial discretion in sentencing, and the accused's age is a factual matter for the court to determine, not a burden for the accused to discharge. Section 337 provides a mechanism for the court to assess age in the absence of evidence, and where uncertainty remains, it must benefit the accused. The trial court's failure to exercise its discretion due to an erroneous view of the law resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Given the real...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds to the extent that the death sentence is set aside and replaced with 12 years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.
  • The appellant is sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.