S v Mabizela and Another (500/90) [1991] ZASCA 55 (21 May 1991)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
500/90
Judges
Hefer, Milne, Friedman
The court held that, following legislative amendments, the death sentence for murder is no longer mandatory and must only be imposed if it is the only proper sentence. In the case of first appellant, the court found that although he participated fully in the planned armed robbery, there was insufficient evidence that he knew the firearms were loaded or that he subjectively foresaw a high risk of death. His previous convictions and role in the crime were aggravating, but the mitigating factors outweighed the need for the death penalty, making a lengthy term of imprisonment appropriate. For sec…
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…