S v Meyer (CA&R 51/2007) [2007] ZANCHC 57 (28 September 2007)

S v Meyer (CA&R 51/2007) [2007] ZANCHC 57 (28 September 2007)

The court held that while the magistrate was correct not to treat the recent conviction as a previous conviction for sentencing purposes, it was nevertheless highly relevant that the appellant was already serving an eight-year sentence for theft. Imposing a further ten-year sentence to run consecutively would result in an effective eighteen-year imprisonment for two theft charges imposed within a month of each other, which is shockingly severe and inappropriate even for a repeat offender. The presiding officer is obliged to consider all factors impacting sentence, including ongoing sentences, and to temper the cumulative effect by ordering partial concurrency. Accordingly, the appeal...

Citation
[2007] ZANCHC 57
Parties
Appellant: Adam Meyer; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2007
Case Number
CA&R 51/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; sentence amended to provide partial concurrency.
Judges
Williams, Mocumie
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Cumulative Sentences, Concurrent Sentences, Previous Convictions
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Cumulative Sentences Concurrent Sentences Previous Convictions

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

Parties

Adam Meyer

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred by not considering the appellant's ongoing sentence when imposing the current sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed is disproportionate and unjust.
  3. 3 Whether part of the sentence should run concurrently with the previous sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the magistrate was correct not to treat the recent conviction as a previous conviction for sentencing purposes, it was nevertheless highly relevant that the appellant was already serving an eight-year sentence for theft. Imposing a further ten-year sentence to run consecutively would result in an effective eighteen-year imprisonment for two theft charges imposed within a month of each other, which is shockingly severe and inappropriate even for a repeat offender. The presiding officer is obliged to consider all factors impacting sentence, including ongoing sentences, and to temper the cumulative effect by ordering partial concurrency. Accordingly, the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; sentence amended to provide partial concurrency.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The sentence imposed is set aside and replaced with: 'Ten (10) years imprisonment. It is further ordered that five (5) years of the imprisonment shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on 21 July 2004.'