S v Van Heerden (631/92) [1993] ZASCA 108 (3 September 1993)

S v Van Heerden (631/92) [1993] ZASCA 108 (3 September 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no merit in the argument that the trial judge failed to exercise discretion properly in sentencing. The trial judge had, in fact, accepted two mitigating factors in favour of the appellant that were not justified by the evidence. The appellant's claim that he believed he would never see his child again after divorce was rejected as implausible, given his circumstances. The alleged motive of love for the deceased was also found to be unconvincing and, if anything, aggravating. The trial judge gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt regarding remorse, but the evidence showed that the appellant only displayed remorse after being confronted by the police...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 108
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Lodewikus Petrus van Heerden; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 1993
Case Number
631/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Vivier, Nienaber, Howie
Legal Topics
Murder, Sentencing, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Contract Killing
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Contract Killing

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

Parties

Johannes Lodewikus Petrus van Heerden

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court overemphasized aggravating factors and underemphasized mitigating factors in sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment for murder was disturbingly severe and warranted appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no merit in the argument that the trial judge failed to exercise discretion properly in sentencing. The trial judge had, in fact, accepted two mitigating factors in favour of the appellant that were not justified by the evidence. The appellant's claim that he believed he would never see his child again after divorce was rejected as implausible, given his circumstances. The alleged motive of love for the deceased was also found to be unconvincing and, if anything, aggravating. The trial judge gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt regarding remorse, but the evidence showed that the appellant only displayed remorse after being confronted by the police...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.