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
Gaosiwe and Another v S (A281/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1001 (24 October 2019)
Appeal against rape convictions and life sentences. Convictions were upheld, but the second appellant’s sentence was reduced to 12 years because he was under 18 at the time of the offence.
M v S (A490/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 435 (8 June 2017)
The court held that, following the Constitutional Court's decision in Centre for Child Law, the minimum sentencing regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act could not be applied to the appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offences. The trial court's reliance on minimum sentences for robbery and murder was therefore a misdirection. The court considered the appellant's age, lack of remorse, seriousness and brutality of the offences, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances. Both counsel agreed that the sentences for counts 5, 6, and 7 should be reduced. The co…
Source excerpt
Maleka v S (A107/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1026 (12 December 2016)
High Court appeal against sentence by a child offender convicted of murder and robbery-related offences; life imprisonment was replaced with 20 years.
Greenwood v S (CA&R 148/2012) [2015] ZAECGHC 86 (8 September 2015)
The court found that the magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness and duration of the offences, the appellant's age, and the psychological impact on the complainants as established by expert evidence. The magistrate did not misdirect himself in accepting the psychologist's findings and excluding other causes for the behavioural changes. The appellant's subsequent employment and lack of further offences did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting interference with the sentence. The sentence imposed was not disproportionately severe and refle…
Source excerpt
Mahlangu v S (A382/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 547 (17 July 2015)
The court held that the failure to swear in the intermediary did not constitute a material irregularity, as the intermediary does not provide evidence but merely assists the child witness in understanding questions. The evidence of the complainant was found to be credible and corroborated by her friends and forensic evidence. The appellant's age at the time of the offence (17 years) was a critical factor, and the minimum sentencing regime prescribed by the Criminal Law Amendment Act does not apply to offenders under 18, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The trial court misdirected its…
Source excerpt
S D P v The State (940/2013) [2014] ZASCA 224 (28 November 2014)
Appeal against a 12-year sentence for two murders and theft was dismissed. The court held that youth and drug use were mitigating, but not enough to justify interference.
Mashishi v S (CAP 3/14) [2014] ZANWHC 10 (23 May 2014)
The appeal court reduced a murder sentence from 22 to 15 years after finding misdirection on premeditation and improper reliance on minimum sentence law.
S v MK (65/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 113; 2012 (2) SACR 533 (GSJ) (31 May 2012)
The trial court erred by disregarding the probation officer’s recommendation for diversion and rehabilitation outside prison, and by incorrectly holding that diversion is only available prior to conviction. The Child Justice Act expressly allows for diversion to be considered at any stage during the trial. The sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was strikingly inappropriate given the accused’s age, personal circumstances, mental health challenges, and the constitutional imperative to treat child offenders differently from adults. Rehabilitation and reintegration into the family and community ar…
Source excerpt
Baas and Others v S (A323/2011) [2011] ZAGPPHC 80 (26 May 2011)
The court found that the trial Magistrate did not display bias and treated the complainant with appropriate sensitivity. The failure to rule on the recusal application and admissibility of the statement did not prejudice the appellants, who were legally represented and did not pursue these issues further. The complainant was found to be a competent witness under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, given her age and responses. The trial court misdirected itself by applying the minimum sentencing provisions to child offenders, as the appellants were under 18 at the time of the offence…
Source excerpt
Xaba v S (AR439/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 2; 2011 (2) SACR 1 (KZP) (2 February 2011)
The court found that the minimum sentencing provisions were incorrectly applied to the appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offences. The sentencing court failed to properly consider the constitutional protections afforded to child offenders and the relevant statutory provisions. The imposition of life imprisonment was a misdirection, and the sentences were set aside. The court determined that a sentence of 20 years imprisonment on each count was appropriate, with the sentences on counts 2 to 5 to run concurrently with count 1.
Source excerpt
Explore more
