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
Mile v S (CC100/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 669 (26 June 2025)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against sentence, holding that the assault and murder convictions were not inextricably linked and concurrency was not warranted.
Mathuthu and Other v S (A56/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 600 (13 June 2025)
The High Court upheld a sentence appeal, setting aside unclear regional court sentencing orders and replacing them with concurrent sentences effective from 5 October 2016.
Sithole and Another v S (SS148/2007) [2025] ZAGPJHC 488 (22 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused in a sentencing dispute about whether an eight-year term should run concurrently with a later reduced sentence.
Mntungwa v S (Appeal) (A156/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 415 (30 April 2025)
The trial court materially misdirected itself by failing to consider and record substantial and compelling circumstances relevant to the appellant, including his status as a first offender and personal circumstances. The trial court also erred in imposing a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for count 5 without justification, contrary to the prescribed minimum sentence for a first offender. The cumulative effect of the sentences was excessive and not in accordance with the law. The appellate court found that the sentences should be reduced and ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effe…
Source excerpt
Temmies and Another v S (Appeal) (A35/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 184 (29 April 2025)
The court held that where there is a discrepancy between the sentence announced in open court and that recorded on the J15 form, the sentence announced in open court prevails for all purposes under the Criminal Procedure Act. The principle of open justice and the accused's right to a fair trial require that sentencing be transparent and public. The trial magistrate materially misdirected herself by failing to order concurrent sentences, resulting in shockingly disproportionate effective imprisonment, and by making errors in assessing prior convictions and personal circumstances. The court fou…
Source excerpt
Sibeko v S and Another (Appeal) (A839/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 407 (23 April 2025)
The court found that the presumption in section 19(2) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act was not applicable to the facts, as the applicant did not admit to dealing but rather to possession for personal use. The trial court misdirected itself by relying on the presumption and failing to invoke section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act to correct the plea to not guilty. The conviction for dealing was set aside and replaced with possession. The sentence imposed was found to be harsh due to the lack of concurrency, constituting a material misdirection. The appeal succeeded on both conviction a…
Source excerpt
Smith v S (Leave to Appeal) (A290/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 105 (6 February 2025)
The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence, reducing life imprisonment for murder to 15 years and assault to 5 years, with concurrent sentences.
Mahlo v S (A17/24) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 5 (31 January 2025)
The High Court upheld a sentence appeal in part, confirming the minimum-sentence finding but ordering counts 2 to 4 to run concurrently with count 1.
L.J.M v S (CA55/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 310 (31 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a 42-year effective sentence for two rape convictions, finding no misdirection and no basis to disturb the trial court’s sentencing discretion.
Zixelele and Another v S (A01/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 312 (15 October 2024)
The court found that the regional magistrate had properly informed the appellants of the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and had afforded their legal representatives an opportunity to address the possibility of increasing the prescribed minimum sentences. The evidence relating to mitigation and aggravation of sentence was available and considered. The offences were extremely serious, involving violence, the use of weapons, and significant trauma to the complainants. The court held that the seriousness of the crimes outweighed the appellants' personal circumstances, which shoul…
Source excerpt
Explore more
