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 Msweli (Sentence) (SS 20/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 987 (25 September 2024)
The High Court sentenced Veli Siyabonga Msweli to life imprisonment for murder, finding no substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the prescribed minimum.
Matsikeni v S (A100/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 404 (15 April 2024)
The High Court refused a sentence appeal in a murder case, holding that the magistrate did not misdirect herself by considering the pre-sentence report.
S v Msimango [2023] ZAGPPHC 524; A146/2021 (30 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for two rape counts and assault, but corrected the sentencing order so all terms run concurrently.
S v Mudau (Sentence) (SS93/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1089 (29 June 2023)
Sentencing in a murder case: the High Court found substantial and compelling circumstances due to the accused’s permanent quadriplegia and imposed a suspended 25-year sentence.
Sithole v S (A232/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 90 (15 February 2022)
Appeal against sentence for kidnapping and murder succeeded after the court found a misdirection in failing to seek a pre-sentence report.
Masekoane v S (A301/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 399 (21 June 2021)
The High Court upheld a sentence appeal only against a non-parole order, finding the trial court misdirected itself by imposing it without proper submissions.
S v Mabape (CC3/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 820 (14 September 2020)
The court found that the accused's conduct constituted premeditated murder, supported by evidence of planning and intent. The brutality of the crime, including multiple stab wounds and the accused's attempt to evade detection, were aggravating factors. The accused did not testify in mitigation and showed no remorse, maintaining his innocence throughout. The court considered the accused's personal circumstances but found them to be ordinary and not substantial or compelling. The prevalence of violence against women and the need for deterrence and retribution were emphasized. The court held tha…
Source excerpt
S v Bixa (CC60/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 82 (27 June 2019)
The court weighed the personal circumstances of the accused, including his youth, lack of prior convictions, and time spent in custody, against the gravity of the offence and the interests of the community. The murder was committed with direct intent, involved extreme brutality, and the victim was a vulnerable child in the accused's care. The accused failed to show genuine remorse and vacillated in accepting responsibility, which the court found aggravating. The court held that the aggravating circumstances far outweighed those in mitigation. Given the seriousness of the crime and the need to…
Source excerpt
Rapodile v S (A209/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 33 (1 March 2019)
The evidence established that the deceased was the instigator and aggressor, and the appellant acted in self-defence but exceeded its boundaries. The trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder; the correct verdict was culpable homicide. The sentence of twelve years imprisonment was disproportionate given the appellant's personal circumstances, the role of the deceased as aggressor, and the mitigating factors. The appeal court substituted the conviction with culpable homicide and reduced the sentence to five years imprisonment, deemed to have commenced on 27 September 2016. The or…
Source excerpt
Jacobs v S (A365/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 4 (11 February 2019)
The magistrate misdirected himself by relying on facts presented during mitigation of sentence that contradicted the factual matrix in the section 112(2) plea statement, which had been accepted by the prosecution. The sentencing should have been based solely on the facts admitted in the plea. The proper procedure, if contradictions arise, is for the prosecutor or court to enter a plea of not guilty under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Despite the misdirection, the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's prior conviction warranted a custodial sentence, but the sentence impos…
Source excerpt
Explore more
