Thakeli and Another v S (231/2017) [2018] ZASCA 47; 2018 (1) SACR 621 (SCA) (28 March 2018)

Thakeli and Another v S (231/2017) [2018] ZASCA 47; 2018 (1) SACR 621 (SCA) (28 March 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court's amendment of the charge sheet after the appellants had pleaded and testified, without affording them an opportunity to address the court on the question of prejudice, constituted a fundamental irregularity. This infringed the appellants' fair trial rights and invalidated the amendment. The court held that the appellants should have been sentenced under s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for murder, rather than under s 51(1), which carries a minimum of life imprisonment. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation from the...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Sente Joseph Thakeli; Appellant: Samuel Zambuk Marumo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
231/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence imposed by trial court set aside and substituted with 15 years' imprisonment for each appellant.
Judges
Lewis, Seriti, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentencing, Charge Sheet Amendment, Fair Trial Rights, Prejudice, Criminal Procedure Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act
Criminal Law Minimum Sentencing Charge Sheet Amendment Fair Trial Rights Prejudice Criminal Procedure Act Criminal Law Amendment Act

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

Parties

Sente Joseph Thakeli

Appellant

Samuel Zambuk Marumo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by amending the charge sheet after the appellants had pleaded and testified, thereby exposing them to a harsher sentencing regime.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to afford the appellants an opportunity to address the court on the amendment constituted a fundamental irregularity infringing their fair trial rights.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants should have been sentenced under s 51(2) rather than s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court's amendment of the charge sheet after the appellants had pleaded and testified, without affording them an opportunity to address the court on the question of prejudice, constituted a fundamental irregularity. This infringed the appellants' fair trial rights and invalidated the amendment. The court held that the appellants should have been sentenced under s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for murder, rather than under s 51(1), which carries a minimum of life imprisonment. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation from the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence imposed by trial court set aside and substituted with 15 years' imprisonment for each appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal against the sentence imposed on both appellants is upheld.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court on the appellants is set aside and substituted as follows: Accused 1 and accused 4 are each sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.