S v Mhlakaza and Another (386/96) [1997] ZASCA 7; [1997] 2 All SA 185 (A) (13 March 1997)

S v Mhlakaza and Another (386/96) [1997] ZASCA 7; [1997] 2 All SA 185 (A) (13 March 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the trial court may have overemphasised deterrence of others, its primary aim was the removal of the appellants from society, which was a proper consideration given the gravity of the offences. The court found that the lengthy suspended sentences were inappropriate and that concurrency should have been used to reduce the effective term. The discrepancy between the sentences of the two appellants was unjustified, as their roles and personal circumstances were similar. The court affirmed that sentences of imprisonment must be realistic and not designed to control executive functions or cater to public opinion. Ultimately, the court deleted the...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: Fuzile Mhlakaza; Appellant: Funani Filemon Bukhani; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 1997
Case Number
386/96
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Cumulative Effect of Sentences
Outcome
Appeal succeeds to the extent that suspended portions of sentences are deleted and more sentences are ordered to run concurrently; effective sentence for both appellants is 38 years.
Judges
Smalberger, Harms, Zulman
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Cumulative Sentences, Life Imprisonment, Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence, Parole Policy, Judicial Vs Executive Function
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Cumulative Sentences Life Imprisonment Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence Parole Policy Judicial Vs Executive Function

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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fuzile Mhlakaza

Appellant

Funani Filemon Bukhani

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Cumulative Effect of Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cumulative sentences of imprisonment far in excess of 25 years are proper.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court overemphasised deterrence and neglected rehabilitation in sentencing.
  3. 3 Whether the discrepancy between the sentences imposed on the two appellants is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the trial court may have overemphasised deterrence of others, its primary aim was the removal of the appellants from society, which was a proper consideration given the gravity of the offences. The court found that the lengthy suspended sentences were inappropriate and that concurrency should have been used to reduce the effective term. The discrepancy between the sentences of the two appellants was unjustified, as their roles and personal circumstances were similar. The court affirmed that sentences of imprisonment must be realistic and not designed to control executive functions or cater to public opinion. Ultimately, the court deleted the...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds to the extent that suspended portions of sentences are deleted and more sentences are ordered to run concurrently; effective sentence for both appellants is 38 years.

Orders

  • The suspended portions of the sentences imposed upon both appellants are deleted.
  • Except for thirteen years, the sentences imposed upon both appellants in relation to counts 5, 6, and 7 (attempted murder), 9 (attempted robbery), 10 and 11 (possession of a firearm and ammunition), and 12 (possession of a machine gun) are to run concurrently with that imposed on count 4 (murder).