S v Makhokha and Another (A11/2008) [2008] ZALMPTHC 1 (23 September 2008)

S v Makhokha and Another (A11/2008) [2008] ZALMPTHC 1 (23 September 2008)

The appeal court found no material misdirection or improper exercise of discretion by the trial court in imposing sentence. The trial court was entitled to treat the offence under Section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act as punishable as theft for sentencing purposes. The arguments regarding previous convictions pending appeal were rejected as these matters were not brought to the trial court's attention and cannot be considered on appeal. The order for sentences to run consecutively was consistent with Section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court further held that a guilty plea does not automatically demonstrate remorse. Accordingly, there was no basis for interference with...

Citation
[2008] ZALMPTHC 1
Parties
Appellant: Lucky Makhokha; Appellant: Oupa Makhokha; Respondent: The State
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2008
Case Number
A11/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences confirmed.
Judges
GNK Hetisani, MM Snyman
Legal Topics
Sentencing Discretion, Possession of Suspected Stolen Property, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Remorse in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentencing Discretion Possession of Suspected Stolen Property Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Remorse in Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Makhokha

Appellant

Oupa Makhokha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in its exercise of sentencing discretion.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court improperly treated the conviction as theft rather than possession under Section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act.
  3. 3 Whether previous convictions pending appeal should have been excluded from consideration in sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found no material misdirection or improper exercise of discretion by the trial court in imposing sentence. The trial court was entitled to treat the offence under Section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act as punishable as theft for sentencing purposes. The arguments regarding previous convictions pending appeal were rejected as these matters were not brought to the trial court's attention and cannot be considered on appeal. The order for sentences to run consecutively was consistent with Section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court further held that a guilty plea does not automatically demonstrate remorse. Accordingly, there was no basis for interference with...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for late filing of the notice of appeal is granted.
  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.