Wang v S (A834/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 276 (24 April 2018)

Wang v S (A834/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 276 (24 April 2018)

The court found that the trial court's approach to concurrent sentences was incorrect, as there is no requirement that only related offences may be ordered to run concurrently. However, the cumulative sentence imposed, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances, lack of previous convictions, and remorse, was not shockingly inappropriate and did not induce a sense of shock. The argument that the appellant's liability to be deported should affect sentencing was rejected, as established by precedent. Therefore, there was no basis for the appeal to succeed, and the sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 276
Parties
Appellant: Tian Tian Wang; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Case Number
A834/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences confirmed.
Judges
Louw, W Louw
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Immigration Offences, Corruption, Deportation Liability
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent Sentences Immigration Offences Corruption Deportation Liability

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tian Tian Wang

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences on counts 2 and 3 should have been ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative sentence imposed is shockingly inappropriate or induces a sense of shock.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's liability to be deported should affect the sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court's approach to concurrent sentences was incorrect, as there is no requirement that only related offences may be ordered to run concurrently. However, the cumulative sentence imposed, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances, lack of previous convictions, and remorse, was not shockingly inappropriate and did not induce a sense of shock. The argument that the appellant's liability to be deported should affect sentencing was rejected, as established by precedent. Therefore, there was no basis for the appeal to succeed, and the sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.