S v Masike (80/1990) [1992] ZASCA 25 (13 March 1992)

S v Masike (80/1990) [1992] ZASCA 25 (13 March 1992)

The magistrate materially misdirected himself by attributing to the appellant a level of involvement and organizational sophistication not supported by the evidence. The appellant's participation was limited to counting the money after the transaction and he was not involved in the initial negotiation or procurement of the tablets. Given these facts, and considering the amended sentencing provisions, a medium term of imprisonment is more appropriate than a lengthy sentence. The appeal against sentence is upheld and the sentence is reduced to four years imprisonment, with two years conditionally suspended.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 25
Parties
Appellant: Maks Masike; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 1992
Case Number
80/1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence reduced.
Judges
Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Mitigation of Sentence, Abuse of Dependence Producing and Rehabilitation Centres Act, Dealing in Prohibited Drugs
Criminal Law Sentencing Mitigation of Sentence Abuse of Dependence Producing and Rehabilitation Centres Act Dealing in Prohibited Drugs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maks Masike

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for dealing in Mandrax was appropriate given his role in the offence.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misdirected himself in assessing the appellant's involvement and the seriousness of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate materially misdirected himself by attributing to the appellant a level of involvement and organizational sophistication not supported by the evidence. The appellant's participation was limited to counting the money after the transaction and he was not involved in the initial negotiation or procurement of the tablets. Given these facts, and considering the amended sentencing provisions, a medium term of imprisonment is more appropriate than a lengthy sentence. The appeal against sentence is upheld and the sentence is reduced to four years imprisonment, with two years conditionally suspended.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence reduced.

Orders

  • The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and substituted with four years imprisonment, of which two years is suspended for five years on condition that the accused does not during the latter period contravene any of the provisions of section 2(a) or 2(c) of Act No 41 of 1971.