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
Tau v S (A30-2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 283 (14 February 2019)
The High Court partly upheld an appeal in a robbery-and-escape case, confirming the robbery conviction on count 2 but setting aside the escape conviction on count 5.
S v Chabalala (100/2016) [2017] ZALMPTHC 5; 2017 (2) SACR 486 (LT) (15 May 2017)
High Court review confirming conviction for escape from custody but reducing the sentence from 8 years to 3 years for want of magistrates' jurisdiction.
S v Maseko (A438/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 493 (1 July 2015)
The court found that the accused's conduct—pretending to be another prisoner to secure his release—was committed with a single intent: to escape from custody. The fraudulent act was not intended to defraud anyone except as a means to facilitate the escape. Applying the tests for duplication of charges, the court held that the conviction for fraud should be set aside, as it was not a distinct offence from the escape. The sentence imposed, which took both charges as one for sentencing purposes, was also set aside. The matter was remitted to the magistrate to impose a proper sentence solely on t…
Source excerpt
S v Maseko (A438/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 424 (1 July 2015)
High Court review setting aside a fraud conviction and sentence where the accused’s conduct was found to form a single escape-from-custody transaction.
Khalaki and Another v S (A177/14) [2015] ZAFSHC 2 (22 January 2015)
The High Court upheld a conviction for escaping from custody, finding the appellant knew his release was unlawful, but ordered the 3-year sentence to run concurrently.
S v Sithibe (69/2904/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 20 (11 February 2013)
The court found that the cumulative sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate was excessive given the offences arose from a single spree of criminal behaviour. The convictions were upheld as the evidence against the accused was overwhelming and his version was rejected as false. However, the court held that a measure of concurrency should have been ordered, as the offences, though serious and not inter-related, were committed in a single sequence. Mitigating factors included the return of the handbag (absent the cash), the minor nature of the injury to Constable Zulu, and…
Source excerpt
S v Dlamini and Others (553/2012) [2012] ZASCA 207 (30 November 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal reduced each appellant’s effective sentence from 36 to 20 years after finding the original cumulative sentence disproportionate.
Zikhale v S (A397/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 317 (27 November 2012)
The High Court dismissed Max Zikhale’s appeal against conviction and sentence for robbery, murder, attempted murder, firearms offences and escape from custody.
Makofane and Another v S (A1099/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 241 (10 December 2010)
The court found that the evidence of Inspector Masango established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants escaped from lawful custody after being locked up in a police cell. Although the appellants claimed to have been released, there was no supporting evidence or register entry to corroborate their defence. The court accepted that the appellants should have been charged under section 117 of the Correctional Services Act rather than section 51(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the escape occurred after detention. However, the essential elements of both offences are substantially simil…
Source excerpt
S v Mamato and Others (A1006/99) [2010] ZAGPPHC 634 (15 June 2010)
The court found that the regional magistrate properly exercised his discretion in refusing the postponement sought by the 6th appellant's legal representative, considering the repeated delays, the interests of justice, and the rights of all parties involved. The 6th appellant had ample opportunity to prepare for trial, having been at large for 14 months before rearrest. The convictions were supported by the facts, and the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and the appellants' previous convictions. The cumulative effect of the sentences was justified by the gravity of…
Source excerpt
Explore more
