S v Machasa and Others (334/90) [1991] ZASCA 84 (4 July 1991)

S v Machasa and Others (334/90) [1991] ZASCA 84 (4 July 1991)

The court found that the first appellant played a leading and violent role in the murder, had prior convictions for violent offences, and that no mitigating factors were present to justify a lesser sentence than the death penalty. The second and third appellants played lesser roles, had no prior convictions, and their conduct was likely influenced by the first appellant's actions; thus, lengthy imprisonment was appropriate rather than the death penalty. The fourth and fifth appellants were under 18 at the time, had no prior convictions, and their youthfulness and lack of inherent malice warranted a substantial reduction in sentence. The court exercised its appellate discretion to...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Israel Machasa; Appellant: Jerry Molobeng; Appellant: Johannes Mono; Appellant: Johannes Mpshe; Appellant: Charles Rhamakhoase; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 1991
Case Number
334/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal of the first appellant dismissed; appeals of the second to fifth appellants upheld in part with sentences substituted.
Judges
Van Heerden, Hefer, Steyn
Legal Topics
Murder, Sentencing Principles, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Youthful Offenders, Common Purpose
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Principles Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Youthful Offenders Common Purpose

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Israel Machasa

Appellant

Jerry Molobeng

Appellant

Johannes Mono

Appellant

Johannes Mpshe

Appellant

Charles Rhamakhoase

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants for murder were appropriate given the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient mitigating factors existed to justify a lesser sentence than the death penalty for the first three appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences for the fourth and fifth appellants, who were under 18 at the time of the offence, were excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first appellant played a leading and violent role in the murder, had prior convictions for violent offences, and that no mitigating factors were present to justify a lesser sentence than the death penalty. The second and third appellants played lesser roles, had no prior convictions, and their conduct was likely influenced by the first appellant's actions; thus, lengthy imprisonment was appropriate rather than the death penalty. The fourth and fifth appellants were under 18 at the time, had no prior convictions, and their youthfulness and lack of inherent malice warranted a substantial reduction in sentence. The court exercised its appellate discretion to...

Court Disposition

Appeal of the first appellant dismissed; appeals of the second to fifth appellants upheld in part with sentences substituted.

Orders

  • The death sentence imposed on the second appellant is replaced with 15 years' imprisonment.
  • The death sentence imposed on the third appellant is replaced with 20 years' imprisonment.