S v Qhinga and Others (CC35/2007) [2009] ZAECBHC 16 (31 March 2009)

S v Qhinga and Others (CC35/2007) [2009] ZAECBHC 16 (31 March 2009)

The court found that, although the crimes were serious and prevalent, certain facts justified a departure from the prescribed minimum sentences. The accused had been in custody for a significant period prior to sentencing. No human life was lost, and only one security guard was injured, with the robbers indicating their intent was not to kill. The get-away vehicle was recovered, and the victims of the robberies were not injured during the commission of the offences. For accused 6, being a first offender was considered. The court concluded that these factors constituted substantial and compelling circumstances. Sentences for counts one to five were ordered to run concurrently, with the...

Citation
[2009] ZAECBHC 16
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Msobomvu Qhinga; Defendant: Lungile Jamiso; Defendant: Camagu Zimela; Defendant: Luvuyo Mcaphukisi; Defendant: Lizo Lumbe; Defendant: Lindile Lincoln Magi
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Case Number
CC35/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Sentencing
Outcome
All accused convicted on multiple counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempted murder. Sentences imposed with certain counts running concurrently and others cumulatively.
Judges
AEB Dhlodhlo
Legal Topics
Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Minimum Sentencing, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances
Criminal Law Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Minimum Sentencing Substantial and Compelling Circumstances

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Msobomvu Qhinga

Defendant

Lungile Jamiso

Defendant

Camagu Zimela

Defendant

Luvuyo Mcaphukisi

Defendant

Lizo Lumbe

Defendant

Lindile Lincoln Magi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify departure from the prescribed minimum sentences for robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempted murder.
  2. 2 What sentences are appropriate for each accused given their personal circumstances and previous convictions.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences should run concurrently or cumulatively.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the crimes were serious and prevalent, certain facts justified a departure from the prescribed minimum sentences. The accused had been in custody for a significant period prior to sentencing. No human life was lost, and only one security guard was injured, with the robbers indicating their intent was not to kill. The get-away vehicle was recovered, and the victims of the robberies were not injured during the commission of the offences. For accused 6, being a first offender was considered. The court concluded that these factors constituted substantial and compelling circumstances. Sentences for counts one to five were ordered to run concurrently, with the...

Court Disposition

All accused convicted on multiple counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempted murder. Sentences imposed with certain counts running concurrently and others cumulatively.

Orders

  • Accused 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are each sentenced to twenty-eight (28) years imprisonment.
  • Accused 6 is sentenced to twenty-two (22) years imprisonment.