S v Makwela (SS 5/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 17 (27 March 2002)

S v Makwela (SS 5/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 17 (27 March 2002)

The court found that the absence of identifiable fingerprints on the firearm or vehicle was a neutral fact and did not undermine the conviction. All other grounds for appeal had already been addressed in the original judgment. Regarding sentence, the court held that the sentences were to run concurrently with the life imprisonment for murder, and, following the precedent in S v Malgas, there was no prospect that another court would impose a different sentence. Therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal against either conviction or sentence.

Citation
[2002] ZAGPHC 17
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Brian Makwela
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2002
Case Number
SS 5/01
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Conviction, Sentence, Life Imprisonment
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Conviction Sentence Life Imprisonment

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Brian Makwela

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would impose a different sentence other than life imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the absence of identifiable fingerprints on the firearm or vehicle was a neutral fact and did not undermine the conviction. All other grounds for appeal had already been addressed in the original judgment. Regarding sentence, the court held that the sentences were to run concurrently with the life imprisonment for murder, and, following the precedent in S v Malgas, there was no prospect that another court would impose a different sentence. Therefore, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal against either conviction or sentence.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.