S v Marx (511/90) [1991] ZASCA 114 (23 September 1991)

S v Marx (511/90) [1991] ZASCA 114 (23 September 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sentences imposed by the regional court were not shockingly severe or disproportionate, given the appellant's repeated offences and failure to be deterred by previous convictions, suspended sentences, and compensation orders. The court found that effective imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence in the circumstances, as the appellant had not learned from experience and was unable to compensate the complainants himself. The court acknowledged that the cumulative effect of the sentences, when considered together with the possible activation of the previously suspended sentence, could be excessive. Therefore, the court ordered that the current...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 114
Parties
Appellant: Henry Ashford Marx; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 1991
Case Number
511/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction in Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for the order that the current sentences shall run concurrently with the suspended sentence from 1987 if it is put into operation.
Judges
Van den Heever, Hefer, Vivier
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Cumulative Sentences, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Fraud, Theft, Suspended Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Cumulative Sentences Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Fraud Theft Suspended Sentence

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Ashford Marx

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction in Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the regional court were shockingly severe or disproportionate in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences rendered them excessive.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's personal circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation justified a lesser sentence or suspension.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sentences imposed by the regional court were not shockingly severe or disproportionate, given the appellant's repeated offences and failure to be deterred by previous convictions, suspended sentences, and compensation orders. The court found that effective imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence in the circumstances, as the appellant had not learned from experience and was unable to compensate the complainants himself. The court acknowledged that the cumulative effect of the sentences, when considered together with the possible activation of the previously suspended sentence, could be excessive. Therefore, the court ordered that the current...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for the order that the current sentences shall run concurrently with the suspended sentence from 1987 if it is put into operation.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • It is ordered that the current sentences shall run concurrently with the suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on 12 February 1987 in case SH 14/87, should it be put into operation.