Steyn v S (100/13) [2014] ZASCA 20 (27 March 2014)

Steyn v S (100/13) [2014] ZASCA 20 (27 March 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court below did not misdirect itself in imposing a sentence of three years' imprisonment under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appellant's rehabilitation and personal circumstances were duly considered, as was the inordinate delay in the appeal process. The gravity and duration of the offences, and the substantial financial losses suffered by the complainants, justified a custodial sentence. Although the court below did not expressly record the five months already served, it was aware of this fact, and the order was amended to reflect the period served. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis for further interference...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Geoffrey Mark Steyn; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2014
Case Number
100/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed with amendment to record time already served.
Judges
Mhlantla, Bosielo, Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Delay in Appeal, Credit for Time Served, Fraud, Theft, Rehabilitation of Offender
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Delay in Appeal Credit for Time Served Fraud Theft Rehabilitation of Offender

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Mark Steyn

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court below misdirected itself in imposing a sentence of direct imprisonment without adequately considering the appellant's rehabilitation.
  2. 2 Whether the court below failed to give credit for the five months already served by the appellant before release on bail pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court below did not misdirect itself in imposing a sentence of three years' imprisonment under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appellant's rehabilitation and personal circumstances were duly considered, as was the inordinate delay in the appeal process. The gravity and duration of the offences, and the substantial financial losses suffered by the complainants, justified a custodial sentence. Although the court below did not expressly record the five months already served, it was aware of this fact, and the order was amended to reflect the period served. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis for further interference...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed with amendment to record time already served.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Paragraph 2 of the order of the high court of 31 August 2012 is amended by the insertion of para (b): '(a) The accused is sentenced to three years' imprisonment in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. (b) It is recorded that the accused has already served a period of five months in...