S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 767 (28 September 2022)

S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 767 (28 September 2022)

The court found that both accused had committed serious offences warranting severe punishment. Accused 1, convicted as an accessory after the fact to murder, knowingly assisted accused 2 in evading justice, thereby denying the victims' families closure. Her actions were devoid of compassion and failed to acknowledge the gravity of her conduct. Accused 2 was convicted of two counts of murder, having shown no remorse and having committed cold-blooded, brutal acts against vulnerable women. The court considered the impact on the victims' families, the interests of society, and the need for deterrence and retribution. No substantial and compelling circumstances were presented to justify...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 767
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Susana Catharina Hester Magdalena Noeth; Defendant: Bernard Noeth
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Case Number
SS52/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
Outcome
Accused 1 sentenced to five years direct imprisonment for accessory after the fact to murder. Accused 2 sentenced to fifteen years direct imprisonment for each count of murder, sentences to run consecutively. Both accused declared unfit to possess a firearm.
Judges
Africa
Legal Topics
Murder, Accessory After the Fact, Minimum Sentencing, Mitigation of Sentence, Gender Based Violence, Firearms Control
Criminal Law Murder Accessory After the Fact Minimum Sentencing Mitigation of Sentence Gender Based Violence Firearms Control

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Susana Catharina Hester Magdalena Noeth

Defendant

Bernard Noeth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for accused 1 convicted as an accessory after the fact to murder.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for accused 2 convicted on two counts of murder under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
  3. 3 Are there substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both accused had committed serious offences warranting severe punishment. Accused 1, convicted as an accessory after the fact to murder, knowingly assisted accused 2 in evading justice, thereby denying the victims' families closure. Her actions were devoid of compassion and failed to acknowledge the gravity of her conduct. Accused 2 was convicted of two counts of murder, having shown no remorse and having committed cold-blooded, brutal acts against vulnerable women. The court considered the impact on the victims' families, the interests of society, and the need for deterrence and retribution. No substantial and compelling circumstances were presented to justify...

Court Disposition

Accused 1 sentenced to five years direct imprisonment for accessory after the fact to murder. Accused 2 sentenced to fifteen years direct imprisonment for each count of murder, sentences to run consecutively. Both accused declared unfit to possess a firearm.

Orders

  • Accused 1 is sentenced to five years direct imprisonment for accessory after the fact to murder under section 276(1)(i) CPA 51 of 1977.
  • Accused 2 is sentenced to fifteen years direct imprisonment for each of two counts of murder under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, as amended.