S v Visser (361/2003) [2003] ZASCA 148; [2004] 1 All SA 605 (SCA); 2004 (1) SACR 393 (SCA) (1 December 2003)

S v Visser (361/2003) [2003] ZASCA 148; [2004] 1 All SA 605 (SCA); 2004 (1) SACR 393 (SCA) (1 December 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's recommendation to reduce the period of periodical imprisonment based on arrear maintenance payments was not legally permissible, as no statutory provision authorizes such a reduction for maintenance defaulters. The sentence imposed must be reformulated. The court found that a wholly suspended sentence would fail to serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence, especially given the appellant's deliberate and recalcitrant conduct. The appellant's financial position and conduct justified a partially suspended sentence, with clear conditions for payment of arrears and compliance with future maintenance orders. The court emphasized the...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 148
Parties
Appellant: Gideon Johan Visser; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2003
Case Number
361/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction in Magistrates' Court and Confirmation by Cape Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentence set aside and replaced with 1440 hours of periodical imprisonment, 1160 hours suspended for five years on conditions.
Judges
Farlam, Navsa, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order Enforcement, Failure to Comply With Court Order, Sentencing Principles, Periodical Imprisonment, Arrear Maintenance, Best Interests of Child
Criminal Law Family and Children Maintenance Order Enforcement Failure to Comply With Court Order Sentencing Principles Periodical Imprisonment Arrear Maintenance Best Interests of Child

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Johan Visser

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence After Conviction in Magistrates' Court and Confirmation by Cape Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 1440 hours of periodical imprisonment, with a portion suspended, is appropriate for deliberate failure to comply with a maintenance order.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's recommendation to reduce imprisonment hours based on arrear payments is legally permissible.
  3. 3 What is the proper approach to sentencing maintenance defaulters in light of constitutional principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's recommendation to reduce the period of periodical imprisonment based on arrear maintenance payments was not legally permissible, as no statutory provision authorizes such a reduction for maintenance defaulters. The sentence imposed must be reformulated. The court found that a wholly suspended sentence would fail to serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence, especially given the appellant's deliberate and recalcitrant conduct. The appellant's financial position and conduct justified a partially suspended sentence, with clear conditions for payment of arrears and compliance with future maintenance orders. The court emphasized the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentence set aside and replaced with 1440 hours of periodical imprisonment, 1160 hours suspended for five years on conditions.

Orders

  • The sentence of 1440 hours of periodical imprisonment in terms of section 285(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is imposed, of which 1160 hours are suspended for five years on condition that the accused is not convicted of failure to comply with any maintenance order during the period of suspension and...
  • It is recommended that the Department of Correctional Services permit the accused to serve periodical imprisonment over weekends.