S v Stotenkamp (311/1993) [1994] ZASCA 95 (30 May 1994)

S v Stotenkamp (311/1993) [1994] ZASCA 95 (30 May 1994)

The court found that none of the factors advanced by the appellant constituted valid mitigating circumstances. The appellant's prior convictions for violent offences, including murder, and the senseless nature of the current offence, indicated overwhelming aggravating factors. The trial court's finding of dolus eventualis did not mitigate the seriousness of the crime. However, due to the coming into force of the new Constitution, the court was unable to confirm the death sentence without first resolving constitutional questions regarding the validity of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. Only the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to decide these constitutional...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 95
Parties
Appellant: Freddy Stotenkamp; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1994
Case Number
311/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
The finalisation of the appeal is postponed pending a decision by the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of confirming the death sentence in this case.
Judges
Botha, EM Grosskopf, Mahomed
Legal Topics
Murder, Death Penalty, Constitutional Review, Sentencing, Dolus Eventualis
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Murder Death Penalty Constitutional Review Sentencing Dolus Eventualis

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freddy Stotenkamp

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant should be confirmed in light of the new Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act authorising confirmation of the death sentence are inconsistent with the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the transitional provisions of the Constitution require the court to apply the Criminal Procedure Act as if the Constitution had not been adopted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the factors advanced by the appellant constituted valid mitigating circumstances. The appellant's prior convictions for violent offences, including murder, and the senseless nature of the current offence, indicated overwhelming aggravating factors. The trial court's finding of dolus eventualis did not mitigate the seriousness of the crime. However, due to the coming into force of the new Constitution, the court was unable to confirm the death sentence without first resolving constitutional questions regarding the validity of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. Only the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to decide these constitutional...

Court Disposition

The finalisation of the appeal is postponed pending a decision by the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of confirming the death sentence in this case.

Orders

  • The finalisation of the appeal is postponed to a date to be arranged by the Registrar in consultation with the Chief Justice, pending a decision by the Constitutional Court on whether confirmation of the death sentence in a case such as the present is constitutional, having regard to sections 9, 11(2), and 241(8) of...