S v Sango (CA 89/06) [2006] ZANWHC 60 (14 September 2006)

S v Sango (CA 89/06) [2006] ZANWHC 60 (14 September 2006)

The court found that the sentence of five years correctional supervision imposed on the accused was not competent, as Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act limits such sentences to a maximum of three years. Given that two years had already elapsed since sentencing, the court determined that remitting the matter for re-sentencing would cause unnecessary delay. Instead, the court exercised its review powers to alter the sentence directly, substituting the five-year term with the statutory maximum of three years correctional supervision. The original conditions of supervision remain in force.

Citation
[2006] ZANWHC 60
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: Betries Sango
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2006
Case Number
CA 89/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Sentence altered on review; five years correctional supervision set aside and substituted with three years correctional supervision.
Judges
R D Hendricks, V V Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Correctional Supervision, Criminal Procedure Act, Review of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Correctional Supervision Criminal Procedure Act Review of Sentence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

Betries Sango

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed under Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act exceeded the statutory maximum period.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence should be altered to comply with the statutory limit.
  3. 3 Whether remitting the matter for re-sentencing is appropriate given the time already elapsed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence of five years correctional supervision imposed on the accused was not competent, as Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act limits such sentences to a maximum of three years. Given that two years had already elapsed since sentencing, the court determined that remitting the matter for re-sentencing would cause unnecessary delay. Instead, the court exercised its review powers to alter the sentence directly, substituting the five-year term with the statutory maximum of three years correctional supervision. The original conditions of supervision remain in force.

Court Disposition

Sentence altered on review; five years correctional supervision set aside and substituted with three years correctional supervision.

Orders

  • The sentence of five years correctional supervision is set aside and substituted with three years correctional supervision in terms of Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  • The conditions imposed when the accused was initially sentenced still apply.