South Africa Case Law

S v Toms; S v Bruce (139/89, 289/89)

S v Toms; S v Bruce (139/89, 289/89) [1990] ZASCA 38; 1990 (2) SA 802 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 248 (A) (30 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

139/89, 289/89

Judges

Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Smalberger JA, Kumleben JA, Nicholas AJA

The majority of the court held that section 126A(1)(a) of the Defence Act does not prescribe a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. The phrase 'liable to' in the section denotes a susceptibility to the prescribed maximum sentence, not a compulsory imposition of that sentence. The absence of the words 'not exceeding' does not, in itself, signify a mandatory sentence, and the legislature did not use clear language to indicate such intent. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and individualization in sentencing, and found that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act per…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Discretion
• Mandatory Sentences
• Statutory Interpretation
• Defence Act
• Conscientious Objection