S v Opperman and Another (643/09) [2010] ZASCA 83; 2010 (2) SACR 248 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 267 (SCA) (31 May 2010)

S v Opperman and Another (643/09) [2010] ZASCA 83; 2010 (2) SACR 248 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 267 (SCA) (31 May 2010)

The majority (Majiedt AJA, Griesel AJA concurring) held that the sentences imposed by the court below—25 years for the first appellant and 20 years for the second appellant, with sentences for indecent assault running concurrently—were severe but not shockingly inappropriate. The court found that the appellants' low intellect, while established, was not so severe as to warrant substantial leniency, especially given their employment history and ability to distinguish right from wrong. The gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the breach of familial trust, and the lack of remorse outweighed the mitigating factors. The court emphasized that, but for a technical defect in...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: Renier Opperman; Appellant: Dirk Johannes Opperman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2010
Case Number
643/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority; sentences confirmed. Minority would have allowed the appeal and substituted sentences.
Judges
Lewis, Heher, Leach, Griesel, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Rape of Minor, Indecent Assault, Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Mitigating Factors, Victim Impact
Criminal Law Rape of Minor Indecent Assault Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Mitigating Factors Victim Impact

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

Parties

Renier Opperman

Appellant

Dirk Johannes Opperman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for rape and indecent assault of young children were appropriate given the appellants' low intellect and lack of insight.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to alert the appellants to the minimum sentencing provisions affected the applicability of prescribed sentences.
  3. 3 Whether the personal circumstances of the appellants, including their own history of sexual abuse and intellectual limitations, warranted a reduction in sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Majiedt AJA, Griesel AJA concurring) held that the sentences imposed by the court below—25 years for the first appellant and 20 years for the second appellant, with sentences for indecent assault running concurrently—were severe but not shockingly inappropriate. The court found that the appellants' low intellect, while established, was not so severe as to warrant substantial leniency, especially given their employment history and ability to distinguish right from wrong. The gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the breach of familial trust, and the lack of remorse outweighed the mitigating factors. The court emphasized that, but for a technical defect in...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority; sentences confirmed. Minority would have allowed the appeal and substituted sentences.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the sentences imposed by the court below are confirmed.
  • (Minority) The sentences imposed by the court a quo are set aside and substituted by imprisonment for 12 years and seven months, all counts to be treated as one for the purpose of sentence, antedated to account for time served.