Van Eck v S (CC29/2013) [2016] ZANWHC 48 (4 August 2016)

Van Eck v S (CC29/2013) [2016] ZANWHC 48 (4 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant was mistaken regarding the sentence for theft, which was 3 years imprisonment, not 5 years. The court confirmed that the sentences for murder and theft were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment. The court was not convinced that another court would reasonably come to a different conclusion regarding the sentences imposed. The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was satisfactorily explained, but since there were no reasonable prospects of success, condonation was refused and leave to appeal was not granted.

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Collin Raymond Van Eck; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2016
Case Number
CC29/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal refused.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Murder, Theft
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Sentencing Concurrent Sentences Murder Theft

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collin Raymond Van Eck

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that an appeal against sentence would succeed.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence for theft should have been ordered to run concurrently with the sentence for murder.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was mistaken regarding the sentence for theft, which was 3 years imprisonment, not 5 years. The court confirmed that the sentences for murder and theft were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment. The court was not convinced that another court would reasonably come to a different conclusion regarding the sentences imposed. The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was satisfactorily explained, but since there were no reasonable prospects of success, condonation was refused and leave to appeal was not granted.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.