S v Nemangaane (A477/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 69 (1 June 2007)

S v Nemangaane (A477/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 69 (1 June 2007)

The reviewing court found that the magistrate had grossly misdirected himself by sentencing the accused as if he had been convicted of attempted rape, rather than assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The evidence did not support a conviction for attempted rape, and the sentence of three years imprisonment was shockingly disproportionate to the actual offences. The court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, substituting it with a sentence of six months imprisonment for both counts, taken as one for purposes of sentence. The court also noted the gross negligence of the clerk of court in failing to submit the record timeously, which resulted in the accused spending...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 69
Parties
Applicant: State; Respondent: Freddy Nemangaane
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2007
Case Number
A477/07
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review
Outcome
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing Misdirection, Review Procedure, Administration of Justice
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Sentencing Misdirection Review Procedure Administration of Justice

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Freddy Nemangaane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was appropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misdirected himself by sentencing on the basis of attempted rape rather than assault.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in forwarding the record of proceedings constituted gross negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing court found that the magistrate had grossly misdirected himself by sentencing the accused as if he had been convicted of attempted rape, rather than assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The evidence did not support a conviction for attempted rape, and the sentence of three years imprisonment was shockingly disproportionate to the actual offences. The court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, substituting it with a sentence of six months imprisonment for both counts, taken as one for purposes of sentence. The court also noted the gross negligence of the clerk of court in failing to submit the record timeously, which resulted in the accused spending...

Court Disposition

Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The conviction is confirmed.
  • The sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by the magistrate is set aside.