Young v S (A130/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 144 (16 March 2020)

Young v S (A130/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 144 (16 March 2020)

The court found that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed by the trial court, resulting in an effective sentence of 88 years imprisonment to be served consecutively with an existing 33-year sentence, was excessive, shockingly inappropriate, and unconstitutional. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act to order concurrent sentences, and did not consider the cumulative impact holistically. The court held that half of the new effective sentence of 36 years imprisonment should run concurrently with the previously imposed 33-year sentence, and the sentence should be ante-dated to the original sentencing date. This approach...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 144
Parties
Appellant: Msomi Norman Young; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Case Number
A130/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; original sentences set aside and substituted with new sentences, with partial concurrency and ante-dating.
Judges
R Strydom, M.M Mabesele, C. van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Minimum Sentences Act, Ante Dating of Sentences, Cruel Inhumane Punishment
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent Sentences Minimum Sentences Act Ante Dating of Sentences Cruel Inhumane Punishment

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Msomi Norman Young

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed, resulting in an effective sentence of 88 years imprisonment, was excessive and shockingly inappropriate.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not ordering any portion of the new sentence to run concurrently with the existing 33-year sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence should be ante-dated and partially run concurrently to avoid cruel, inhumane, and unconstitutional punishment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed by the trial court, resulting in an effective sentence of 88 years imprisonment to be served consecutively with an existing 33-year sentence, was excessive, shockingly inappropriate, and unconstitutional. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act to order concurrent sentences, and did not consider the cumulative impact holistically. The court held that half of the new effective sentence of 36 years imprisonment should run concurrently with the previously imposed 33-year sentence, and the sentence should be ante-dated to the original sentencing date. This approach...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; original sentences set aside and substituted with new sentences, with partial concurrency and ante-dating.

Orders

  • The sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside and substituted with: Count 1, murder, 17 years imprisonment; Count 2, murder, 20 years imprisonment; Count 6, murder, 15 years imprisonment. The sentences on counts 1 and 6 are to be served concurrently with count 2, resulting in 20 years imprisonment for these...
  • Count 8, robbery with aggravating circumstances, 15 years imprisonment; Count 9, unlawful possession of a firearm, 3 years imprisonment; Counts 10 and 11, robbery with aggravating circumstances, 15 years imprisonment each. The sentences on counts 10 and 11 are to be served concurrently with count 8. Two years of the...