S v Matsho (499/1988) [1989] ZASCA 77 (1 June 1989)

S v Matsho (499/1988) [1989] ZASCA 77 (1 June 1989)

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly rejected the appellant's claims of mitigating circumstances. The appellant's unemployment and alleged poverty were not substantiated by evidence of necessity or dire need. The court held that the use of dolus eventualis in the context of a premeditated robbery involving the reckless discharge of a firearm at close range did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The planning and execution of the robbery, as well as the appellant's conduct, demonstrated a total disregard for the risk of death to others. The appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the death sentences for murder was dismissed. However, the...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Strike Matsho; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1989
Case Number
499/1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the death sentences for murder dismissed. Sentence for unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition amended.
Judges
Botha, Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Sentencing, Mitigating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Sentencing Mitigating Circumstances

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Strike Matsho

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of mitigating circumstances was correctly found in respect of the murder convictions.
  2. 2 Whether the death sentences imposed for murder were appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition exceeded the statutory maximum and required adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly rejected the appellant's claims of mitigating circumstances. The appellant's unemployment and alleged poverty were not substantiated by evidence of necessity or dire need. The court held that the use of dolus eventualis in the context of a premeditated robbery involving the reckless discharge of a firearm at close range did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The planning and execution of the robbery, as well as the appellant's conduct, demonstrated a total disregard for the risk of death to others. The appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the death sentences for murder was dismissed. However, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the death sentences for murder dismissed. Sentence for unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition amended.

Orders

  • The appeal against the finding of no mitigating circumstances and the death sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 is dismissed.
  • The sentence of 3 years imprisonment imposed on counts 4 and 5 is set aside and replaced with a sentence of 18 months imprisonment on count 4 and 6 months imprisonment on count 5, both to run concurrently with the sentence of 18 years imprisonment imposed on count 3.