Silo v S (CA & R 4/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 60 (11 May 2013)

Silo v S (CA & R 4/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 60 (11 May 2013)

The court found that while the individual sentences imposed for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances (18 years) and attempted murder (12 years) were appropriate, the cumulative effect resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment was excessive. The trial court failed to properly consider the globular effect of the sentences and the lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration. The convictions and individual sentences were confirmed, but the order regarding concurrency was amended so that 10 years of the attempted murder sentence would run concurrently with the robbery sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

Citation
[2013] ZAECGHC 60
Parties
Appellant: Bulelani Sicelo Silo; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2013
Case Number
CA & R 4/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence partially upheld; effective sentence reduced.
Judges
R. Pillay, D. Chetty
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Minimum Sentences Act, Globular Effect, Aggravating Circumstances, Concurrent Sentences, Attempted Murder
Criminal Law Sentencing Minimum Sentences Act Globular Effect Aggravating Circumstances Concurrent Sentences Attempted Murder

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bulelani Sicelo Silo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed was excessive and inappropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to properly consider the globular effect of multiple sentences.
  3. 3 Whether the period of concurrent imprisonment should be increased to regularise the effective sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the individual sentences imposed for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances (18 years) and attempted murder (12 years) were appropriate, the cumulative effect resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment was excessive. The trial court failed to properly consider the globular effect of the sentences and the lengthy period of pre-trial incarceration. The convictions and individual sentences were confirmed, but the order regarding concurrency was amended so that 10 years of the attempted murder sentence would run concurrently with the robbery sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence partially upheld; effective sentence reduced.

Orders

  • The convictions and individual sentences are confirmed.
  • The previous order that 5 years of the sentence imposed on count 2 is to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 1 is set aside.