S v Masemola (CM433/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 259 (6 June 2017)

S v Masemola (CM433/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 259 (6 June 2017)

The court found that the suspended sentence condition requiring the accused to compensate the complainant was not made under section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather under section 297(1)(i)(aa), which is the correct statutory provision for such a condition. The reference to section 300 in the sentence was therefore irregular and must be deleted. Furthermore, the order that both counts are taken together for the purpose of sentence was inconsistent with the fact that separate sentences and differing conditions of suspension were imposed for each count. As such, the order was without purpose and must be set aside. The remaining sentences on both counts were confirmed as lawful.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 259
Parties
Applicant: THE STATE; Respondent: VICTOR MASEMOLA
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
CM433/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review
Outcome
The reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 is deleted from the sentence on count 1; the remaining sentences on both counts are confirmed; the order that both counts are taken together for the purpose of sentence is set aside.
Judges
DE VOS, VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
Legal Topics
Malicious Injury to Property, Assault, Suspended Sentence Conditions, Compensation Order, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Malicious Injury to Property Assault Suspended Sentence Conditions Compensation Order Criminal Procedure Act

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

Parties

THE STATE

Applicant

VICTOR MASEMOLA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suspended sentence condition to compensate the complainant was lawfully imposed under the correct statutory provision.
  2. 2 Whether the order that both counts are taken together for the purpose of sentence is legally valid given the separate sentences and conditions imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suspended sentence condition requiring the accused to compensate the complainant was not made under section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather under section 297(1)(i)(aa), which is the correct statutory provision for such a condition. The reference to section 300 in the sentence was therefore irregular and must be deleted. Furthermore, the order that both counts are taken together for the purpose of sentence was inconsistent with the fact that separate sentences and differing conditions of suspension were imposed for each count. As such, the order was without purpose and must be set aside. The remaining sentences on both counts were confirmed as lawful.

Court Disposition

The reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 is deleted from the sentence on count 1; the remaining sentences on both counts are confirmed; the order that both counts are taken together for the purpose of sentence is set aside.

Orders

  • The reference to section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 is deleted from the sentence imposed on count 1.
  • The remaining part of the sentence imposed on count 1 is confirmed.