Shongwe v S (A166/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 62 (25 February 2019)

Shongwe v S (A166/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 62 (25 February 2019)

The court found that, when the evidence of the state witnesses was considered as a whole, the discrepancies were not material and did not undermine the reliability of their testimony. Both witnesses placed the appellant at the scene and involved in the attack on the deceased. The appellant's version was found to be improbable and contradicted by the evidence. The trial court's finding of substantial and compelling circumstances was upheld, justifying a sentence below the prescribed minimum. There was no basis to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 62
Parties
Appellant: Roberto Romario Shongwe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2019
Case Number
A166/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Millar, Neukircher
Legal Topics
Murder, Minimum Sentencing, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Minimum Sentencing Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Roberto Romario Shongwe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder was justified on the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the prescribed minimum sentence and the existence of substantial and compelling circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, when the evidence of the state witnesses was considered as a whole, the discrepancies were not material and did not undermine the reliability of their testimony. Both witnesses placed the appellant at the scene and involved in the attack on the deceased. The appellant's version was found to be improbable and contradicted by the evidence. The trial court's finding of substantial and compelling circumstances was upheld, justifying a sentence below the prescribed minimum. There was no basis to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction on count 1 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against sentence on count 1 is dismissed.