Tau v S (A30-2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 283 (14 February 2019)

Tau v S (A30-2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 283 (14 February 2019)

The court found that the appellant's participation in holding warrant officer Mahule before he was tied up constituted intentional association with the perpetrators of the robbery, satisfying the requirements for common purpose and mens rea. The evidence did not support the conviction for unlawful escape on count 5, as the appellant was removed from the cell by a police officer and there was no evidence of his involvement in the escape. The court held that there was no legal impediment to ordering that the sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 run concurrently, as the Correctional Services Act allows for such direction by the court. The sentences imposed by the trial court were amended to...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 283
Parties
Appellant: John Buti Tau; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Case Number
A30/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against conviction on count 2 is dismissed; the appeal against conviction on count 5 succeeds; the appeal against sentence on counts 1, 2, and 3 succeeds; sentences are amended to run concurrently and ante-dated.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, J.M Matsemela
Legal Topics
Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Escape From Custody, Minimum Sentencing, Correctional Services Act, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Escape From Custody Minimum Sentencing Correctional Services Act Concurrent Sentences

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Buti Tau

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the necessary intention to rob warrant officer Mahule of his cell phone.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction on count 5 for unlawful escape from custody was supported by the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed should run concurrently in terms of the Correctional Services Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's participation in holding warrant officer Mahule before he was tied up constituted intentional association with the perpetrators of the robbery, satisfying the requirements for common purpose and mens rea. The evidence did not support the conviction for unlawful escape on count 5, as the appellant was removed from the cell by a police officer and there was no evidence of his involvement in the escape. The court held that there was no legal impediment to ordering that the sentences for counts 1, 2, and 3 run concurrently, as the Correctional Services Act allows for such direction by the court. The sentences imposed by the trial court were amended to...

Court Disposition

The appeal against conviction on count 2 is dismissed; the appeal against conviction on count 5 succeeds; the appeal against sentence on counts 1, 2, and 3 succeeds; sentences are amended to run concurrently and ante-dated.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction on count 2 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the conviction on count 5 succeeds and the conviction is set aside.