South Africa Case Law

Kotsoane v S (R05/2017)

Kotsoane v S (R05/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 18 (7 February 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R05/2017

Judges

Reinders, Nicholson

The court held that the magistrate was not permitted to order that sentences of fines with alternative imprisonment run concurrently under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The statute and binding case law make it clear that concurrency is only available for sentences of imprisonment, not for fines with alternative imprisonment. The magistrate's order was therefore impermissible. However, since the accused had already paid the fine and been released, simply deleting the concurrency order would result in unfairness and possible re-arrest. The court set aside the sentences and repla…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Concurrency
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 280
• Alternative Imprisonment
• Review Of Magistrate Decision

S v Jwara (A841/2015)

S v Jwara (A841/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 890 (12 November 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A841/2015

Judges

H.J Fabricius, J.J Strijdom

Special review of a sentence for drug possession confirmed concurrency can be ordered, but only if the alternative imprisonment in the earlier fine-based sentence is actually served.

• Drug Offences
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 280
• Parole Revocation
• Sentencing-concurrency
• Criminal-procedure

Prince v S (A138/2013)

Prince v S (A138/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 239 (28 November 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A138/2013

Judges

K.J. Moloi, C. Van Zyl

The trial court misdirected itself by failing to consider the cumulative effect of imposing consecutive sentences and by not applying section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for concurrent sentences. The resulting total sentence of 36 years imprisonment was unduly harsh and induced a sense of shock, contrary to principles of rehabilitation and proportionality. The appeal against sentence was upheld, and the sentence was substituted to ensure that part of the rape sentence runs concurrently with the existing murder sentence, thereby mitigating the cumulative effect and align…

Source excerpt

• Rape Sentencing
• Concurrent Sentences
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 280
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances