Tau v S (A624/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 357 (18 May 2018)

Tau v S (A624/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 357 (18 May 2018)

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in failing to apply the same mitigating factors to the rape charge as it did to the robbery charges. The appellant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, recovery of stolen property, and lack of serious injury to the complainants constituted substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences for all counts. The cumulative effect of the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court was disproportionate and shockingly inappropriate. The appeal court held that the sentences for counts 2 and 3 should run concurrently, resulting in a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment, which properly...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 357
Parties
Appellant: RetShedisitswe William Tau; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Case Number
A624/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentences set aside and replaced with lesser sentences, with counts 2 and 3 to run concurrently.
Judges
Swanepoel, Teffo
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Rape, Concurrent Sentences, Mitigation of Sentence
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Substantial and Compelling Circumstances Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Rape Concurrent Sentences Mitigation of Sentence

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

Parties

RetShedisitswe William Tau

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in failing to find substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for rape.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences imposed was appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether sentences for offences committed closely in time and place should run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in failing to apply the same mitigating factors to the rape charge as it did to the robbery charges. The appellant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, recovery of stolen property, and lack of serious injury to the complainants constituted substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences for all counts. The cumulative effect of the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court was disproportionate and shockingly inappropriate. The appeal court held that the sentences for counts 2 and 3 should run concurrently, resulting in a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment, which properly...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld. Sentences set aside and replaced with lesser sentences, with counts 2 and 3 to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is upheld.
  • The sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside and replaced with the following: Count 1: 8 years' imprisonment; Count 2: 8 years' imprisonment; Count 3: 9 years' imprisonment.