South Africa Case Law

S v Ntamehlo (CC60/2021)

S v Ntamehlo (CC60/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 181; 2023 (2) SACR 518 (WCC) (2 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC60/2021

Judge

DM Thulare

The court found that the accused planned and executed the murder of his wife to deprive her of her share in the joint estate, constituting an aggravating factor. The history of domestic violence, the calculated nature of the crime, and the subsequent attempt to conceal the body demonstrated extreme callousness and controlling behaviour. No substantial and compelling circumstances were presented to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The court held that public policy, reasonableness, and fairness require that a spouse who intentionally kills their partner should forfeit any…

Source excerpt

• Planned Murder
• Domestic Violence
• Forfeiture Of Matrimonial Property
• Unworthy Spouse Principle
• Minimum Sentencing
• Child Welfare

Brits v S (CA & R 29/21)

Brits v S (CA & R 29/21) [2021] ZANCHC 21 (21 July 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 29/21

Judge

Lever

The court held that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by s60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Her health was stable and managed in custody, her business interests did not require her immediate involvement, and her children's material and physical needs were met, with only emotional needs in contention. The court found that emotional needs alone, without independent evidence, did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The cumulative effect of all circumstances did not rise to the level required to permit release on bail. The Magistrate's decision w…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Onus Of Proof
• Child Welfare
• Release Pending Trial

S v Cwinyane (KS17/2020)

S v Cwinyane (KS17/2020) [2020] ZANCHC 86 (18 November 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS17/2020

Judge

Mamosebo

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for premeditated murder, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the prescribed sentence.

• Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Primary Caregiver
• Gender Based Violence
• Child Welfare
• Life Imprisonment

M.L.M v S (CA&R29/16)

M.L.M v S (CA&R29/16) [2016] ZAECGHC 98 (21 September 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 29/16

Judges

M Makaula, J Roberson

The court held that the absence of information regarding whether the appellant was a primary caregiver to his children constituted a material misdirection in the sentencing process. The guidelines established in S v M require courts to investigate and consider the interests of children when sentencing a primary caregiver. Since the pre-sentence report did not address this issue and the court a quo failed to raise or consider it, the sentence imposed was vitiated. The matter must be remitted to the trial court for a new pre-sentence report and for the appellant to be sentenced afresh, taking i…

Source excerpt

• Culpable Homicide
• Sentencing Principles
• Primary Caregiver
• Child Welfare

S v Mbonde (CA&R251/2015, 86/2015)

S v Mbonde (CA&R251/2015, 86/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 93 (17 September 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R251/2015, 86/2015

Judges

M Roberson, D Pickering

The magistrate failed to consider the interests of the accused's children and her status as a primary caregiver when imposing sentence, and did not obtain a probation officer's report despite clear indications that the accused was responsible for minor children. This omission constituted a material misdirection. The sentence of two years' imprisonment, half suspended, was disproportionately severe given the nature of the breach of the protection order, the absence of actual violence, and the accused's personal circumstances. The accused had already served 90 days in custody, which was deemed…

Source excerpt

• Domestic Violence Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Primary Caregiver
• Child Welfare
• Magistrates Court Review

Mthethwa v S (A17/2013)

Mthethwa v S (A17/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 502; 2015 (1) SACR 609 (GP) (11 July 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A17/2013

Judges

T.M. Makgoka, R. Tolmay

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped the complainant on 14 April 2011. The medical evidence did not indicate fresh penetration or injury on the date alleged, and the complainant's evidence was incoherent and unsupported by objective findings. The trial court erred by focusing on evidence of repeated penetration rather than the specific incident charged. The contradictions in the State's case were material, and the cautionary rules regarding child witnesses were not properly applied. The conduct of the presiding magistrate was…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Child Witness Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Judicial Conduct
• Child Welfare

S v Ranoha (363/2011)

S v Ranoha (363/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 20 (23 February 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

363/2011

Judges

Mocumie, Naidoo

The High Court remitted a sentence review for reconsideration after finding the magistrate overemphasised punishment and failed to weigh the accused’s caregiving role.

• Sentencing Guidelines
• Primary Caregiver
• Correctional Supervision
• Child Welfare
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Sentencing-guidelines

Petersen v S (A537/08)

Petersen v S (A537/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 154 (4 June 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A537/08

Judges

Jaga, Allie

The High Court confirmed Petersen's convictions but upheld his sentence appeal, remitting sentencing because the magistrate failed to properly consider the welfare of his young child.

• Sentencing Principles
• Primary Caregiver
• Child Welfare
• Constitutional Rights Of Children
• Criminal-sentencing
• Child-welfare