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
Mphetsheni v S (CA & R 57/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 65 (26 July 2024)
The High Court upheld a murder and attempted-murder conviction, but set aside a 17-year globular sentence and replaced it with separate sentences.
Jacobs and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CA 31/2020) [2023] ZANWHC 60 (23 May 2023)
The High Court upheld the appeal, setting aside both appellants’ convictions and sentences after finding material contradictions and unsafe factual findings.
Brown v S (CA & R 2/21) [2022] ZANCHC 15; 2022 (2) SACR 194 (NCK) (18 March 2022)
The High Court upheld sentence interference in part, finding a globular six-year sentence incompetent for the firearm count and replacing it with separate concurrent sentences.
Masina v S (A23/2020) [2021] ZAMPMHC 34 (13 December 2021)
The appeal court found no misdirection in the trial court's rejection of the appellant's version regarding the events of the night in question. The evidence established that the complainant was assaulted and held against her will, negating any claim of consensual intercourse. However, the injuries sustained by the complainant, as reflected in the J88 report (swollen lips and reddish eyes), did not meet the threshold for grievous bodily harm as contemplated by section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The trial court erred in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment based on this findin…
Source excerpt
S v Thobela (130/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 64; 2020 (2) SACR 222 (GJ) (12 March 2020)
The High Court set aside a globular three-year sentence because it exceeded the statutory maximum for trespass, and remitted the case for fresh sentencing.
Rontlai v S (1178/2016) [2017] ZASCA 106; 2018 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (13 September 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the globular sentence of 20 years' imprisonment imposed for three counts of robbery was inappropriate after the conviction on one count was set aside. The trial court erred by not reconsidering the sentence for the remaining counts. The appellant's personal circumstances did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the prescribed minimum sentence. The proper approach was to impose individual sentences for the remaining counts and order them to run concurrently, thereby ensuring the appellant received the benefit o…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions v Phillips (271/2011) [2011] ZASCA 192; 2013 (1) SACR 107 (SCA) (14 November 2011)
Appeal against sentence succeeded after the SCA found the trial court misdirected itself and imposed a globular sentence in a domestic-violence murder matter.
Masiza v S (CA&R 315/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 44; 2013 (1) SACR 121 (ECG) (2 September 2011)
The trial court erred by imposing a composite sentence of 20 years imprisonment for counts 1, 2, and 3, which exceeded its penal jurisdiction under the Firearms Control Act for counts 2 and 3. The minimum sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances was correctly applied, as there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence. However, the sentences for the possession of firearms and ammunition should not have exceeded the statutory maximum of 15 years. The appellate court set aside the composite sentence and imposed separate sentences for each count, or…
Source excerpt
Ngabase and Another v S (CA&R 86/2010) [2010] ZAECGHC 112; 2011 (1) SACR 456 (ECG) (25 November 2010)
The trial magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for the convictions, particularly on the dangerous weapons charges, and did not properly evaluate the evidence or make credibility findings regarding the appellants. The appellate court, therefore, reassessed the evidence and found that the convictions for robbery were supported by reliable identification and corroborative testimony, especially from the accomplice and state witnesses. However, there was no evidence to support the convictions for possession of dangerous weapons, as the definition in the Act excludes firearms and no witnes…
Source excerpt
S v Voorby (41/01) [2001] ZANWHC 31 (15 June 2001)
Review judgment setting aside convictions on two counts after a denial of cross-examination, and confirming only the count 3 conviction with a substituted sentence.
Explore more
