Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v I.S (R21/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 213 (23 July 2024)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction after it emerged the accused was 17. The prosecution must restart under the Child Justice Act.
S v L.C (R12/2022;R13/2022) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 86; 2023 (1) SACR 578 (MM) (30 November 2022)
On special review, the High Court set aside convictions and sentences because the magistrate failed to determine that the accused were children.
S v B O; S v K P (181000; 181002) [2018] ZAWCHC 139 (2 November 2018)
High Court review setting aside a child’s conviction and child sentencing errors where accused were wrongly treated as adults instead of under the Child Justice Act.
T and Another v S (184/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 214 (5 November 2015)
High Court review set aside guilty-plea proceedings after it emerged the accused were minors, requiring the matter to start de novo under the Child Justice Act.
S v Masinga (137/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 244 (3 October 2013)
The High Court reviewed and set aside a guilty conviction after discovering the accused was 16 at the time, requiring Child Justice Act protections.
Gumede v S (CA&R181/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 88 (17 November 2011)
The High Court confirmed convictions for theft and assault as competent verdicts on a robbery charge, but set aside sentence pending an inquiry into the appellant’s age.
S v Ndlalose (197/88) [1988] ZASCA 161 (30 November 1988)
The court found that the evidence regarding Bheki's age was inconclusive and unreliable, particularly the expert testimony and the absence of documentary proof. Applying the principle that uncertainty regarding age must be resolved in favour of the accused, the court held that there was a real doubt as to whether Bheki was over 18 at the time of the offences. Consequently, he should have been sentenced as if he were under 18. The court substituted the death sentences with a consolidated sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for the four counts of murder, with all other sentences to run concurren…
Source excerpt
S v Ngoma (59/84) [1984] ZASCA 59; [1984] 2 All SA 380 (A) ; 1984 (3) SA 666 (A) (25 May 1984)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly investigate and make a specific finding regarding the appellant's age, which was near the statutory threshold for mandatory death sentence. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was older than 18 years. The trial court also failed to provide reasons for its majority finding of no extenuating circumstances. Considering the appellant's youthfulness, immaturity, lack of education, unsophisticated background, and the fact that his intent was dolus eventualis rather than direct intent to kill, the only reasonable…
Source excerpt
Explore more
