S v Morale (A27/03) [2005] ZAFSHC 3 (17 February 2005)

S v Morale (A27/03) [2005] ZAFSHC 3 (17 February 2005)

The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the appellant had admitted all elements of the offences and the conviction was proper. However, the appeal against sentence succeeded. The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by declaring the appellant an habitual criminal without a proper investigation into the nature and circumstances of his previous convictions, and without considering the lapse of time between offences. The appellant had not been warned previously about the possibility of such a declaration, and his criminal record did not show a consistent pattern of habitual offending. The imposed sentence was set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment on each...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 3
Parties
Appellant: Matthews Morale; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2005
Case Number
A27/03
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld. Sentence of habitual criminal set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment on each charge. Appellant warned of possible future habitual criminal declaration.
Judges
C Van Zyl, C H G Van Der Merwe
Legal Topics
Habitual Criminal Declaration, Sentencing Discretion, Housebreaking and Theft, Section 286 Criminal Procedure Act, Condonation for Late Appeal
Criminal Law Habitual Criminal Declaration Sentencing Discretion Housebreaking and Theft Section 286 Criminal Procedure Act Condonation for Late Appeal

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

Parties

Matthews Morale

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted on two counts of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence declaring the appellant an habitual criminal under Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act was appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's previous convictions justified a declaration as an habitual criminal.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the appellant had admitted all elements of the offences and the conviction was proper. However, the appeal against sentence succeeded. The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by declaring the appellant an habitual criminal without a proper investigation into the nature and circumstances of his previous convictions, and without considering the lapse of time between offences. The appellant had not been warned previously about the possibility of such a declaration, and his criminal record did not show a consistent pattern of habitual offending. The imposed sentence was set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment on each...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld. Sentence of habitual criminal set aside and replaced with three years' imprisonment on each charge. Appellant warned of possible future habitual criminal declaration.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions is dismissed and both convictions are confirmed.
  • The appeal against the sentence is upheld.