S v Seheri and Another (382/89) [1990] ZASCA 73 (1 June 1990)

S v Seheri and Another (382/89) [1990] ZASCA 73 (1 June 1990)

The court found that the first appellant's actions were deliberate, planned, and executed for a rational objective, namely the recovery of a firearm, and not the result of uncontrollable rage or diminished responsibility. The expert evidence did not establish that the personality disorder influenced his conduct at the relevant time. No extenuating circumstances were proven, and the trial court's finding was upheld. Regarding the second appellant, the court accepted that he was influenced to some extent by the first appellant and his companions, was a first offender, and had suffered significant deprivation of liberty. The sentence imposed was found to be too severe, and a reduced sentence...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 73
Parties
Appellant: Oupa Alex Seheri; Appellant: Setimbiso Buthelezi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1990
Case Number
382/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
First appellant's appeal dismissed; second appellant's appeal against sentence upheld and sentence reduced.
Judges
Corbett, Steyn, Friedman
Legal Topics
Extenuating Circumstances, Diminished Responsibility, Illegal Possession of Firearms, Sentencing, Mitigation of Sentence
Criminal Law Extenuating Circumstances Diminished Responsibility Illegal Possession of Firearms Sentencing Mitigation 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oupa Alex Seheri

Appellant

Setimbiso Buthelezi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extenuating circumstances existed in respect of the murder convictions of the first appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the first appellant acted under diminished responsibility due to a personality disorder.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on the second appellant was appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first appellant's actions were deliberate, planned, and executed for a rational objective, namely the recovery of a firearm, and not the result of uncontrollable rage or diminished responsibility. The expert evidence did not establish that the personality disorder influenced his conduct at the relevant time. No extenuating circumstances were proven, and the trial court's finding was upheld. Regarding the second appellant, the court accepted that he was influenced to some extent by the first appellant and his companions, was a first offender, and had suffered significant deprivation of liberty. The sentence imposed was found to be too severe, and a reduced sentence...

Court Disposition

First appellant's appeal dismissed; second appellant's appeal against sentence upheld and sentence reduced.

Orders

  • The appeal of the first appellant is dismissed.
  • The appeal of the second appellant succeeds.