Segwati v S (620/2018) [2019] ZASCA 35 (29 March 2019)

Segwati v S (620/2018) [2019] ZASCA 35 (29 March 2019)

The trial court erred by treating the appellant as a third offender and imposing the prescribed minimum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, as his previous convictions were more than 14 years old and related to offences covered by section 271A of the Criminal Procedure Act. These convictions should have fallen away and not been considered for sentencing purposes. The high court further erred in refusing leave to appeal against sentence, as there were reasonable prospects of success. The Supreme Court of Appeal, therefore, set aside the high court's order and granted leave to appeal against sentence to the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg.

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Ishmael Blessing Segwati; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
620/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the high court set aside; leave to appeal against sentence granted.
Judges
Ponnan, Leach, Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Previous Convictions, Criminal Procedure Act, Leave to Appeal
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Previous Convictions Criminal Procedure Act Leave to Appeal

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

Parties

Ishmael Blessing Segwati

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's previous convictions were impermissibly taken into account for the purposes of minimum sentencing.
  2. 2 Whether the high court erred in refusing leave to appeal against sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the prescribed minimum sentence was correctly imposed.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erred by treating the appellant as a third offender and imposing the prescribed minimum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, as his previous convictions were more than 14 years old and related to offences covered by section 271A of the Criminal Procedure Act. These convictions should have fallen away and not been considered for sentencing purposes. The high court further erred in refusing leave to appeal against sentence, as there were reasonable prospects of success. The Supreme Court of Appeal, therefore, set aside the high court's order and granted leave to appeal against sentence to the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the high court set aside; leave to appeal against sentence granted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following: 'The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg solely against the sentence imposed upon him for his convictions of theft or attempted theft.'