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
Vumani Oscar Ntuli v S (1025/2022) [2023] ZASCA 150 (10 November 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate misdirected himself by not considering pre-sentence custody when imposing sentence, and granted leave to appeal against sentence.
Director of Public Prosecutions; Gauteng Pretoria v Masuku (A102/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 200 (28 May 2020)
The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal against sentence, finding the regional court’s sentences shockingly lenient and materially misdirected.
Rampagane v S (K/S 3/2015) [2018] ZANCHC 5 (23 February 2018)
The trial court misdirected itself by imposing a sentence for rape that was substantially higher than the prescribed minimum without proper justification and by considering aggravating factors from the attempted murder in sentencing for rape. The appellant was not properly warned of the possibility of a life sentence, and the charge sheet was not formally amended. The appellate court found that, while the offences were serious and warranted a sentence above the minimum, the personal circumstances of the appellant and prospects of rehabilitation were not adequately considered. The sentences fo…
Source excerpt
Setsiba v S (A191/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 347 (10 November 2017)
High Court appeal against sentence for attempted murder upheld; the court reduced the effective sentence after finding misdirection and poor consideration of the pre-sentencing report.
Meva v S (R194/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 155 (15 December 2016)
The court found that the magistrate erred in treating the appellant as a second offender for purposes of the minimum sentencing legislation, as his prior conviction was for robbery simpliciter and not robbery with aggravating circumstances. The correct minimum sentence applicable was 15 years' imprisonment for a first offender. The evidence of the state witnesses was credible and corroborated, supporting the conviction for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his youth, were outweighed by the seriousness of the offence and his recent prior…
Source excerpt
Pooe v S (A753/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1202 (29 November 2016)
The trial court misdirected itself by not ordering the sentences for housebreaking and conspiracy to commit robbery to run concurrently, given that both offences were committed at the same place and time and were closely linked. The cumulative effect of the sentences was unduly harsh. The appellate court is therefore entitled to interfere and order the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an effective eight-year imprisonment. Furthermore, the sentence imposed under section 120(4) of the Children's Act was not justified, as the appellant was not convicted of any offence listed in that s…
Source excerpt
Phage v S (A35/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 556 (21 June 2016)
Appeal against sentence in a rape matter succeeded. The High Court set aside life imprisonment on two counts and imposed 35 years on each count, concurrent.
Tibane v S (A102/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 308 (11 December 2015)
The High Court partially upheld an appeal against sentence, reducing the terms for fraud-related counts and confirming the remaining sentences.
M v S (A66/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 165 (3 September 2015)
The sentencing court committed a serious misdirection by applying section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act to the appellant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offence. Section 51(6) expressly excludes its application to persons under 18. The appellate court, acting as the upper guardian of the best interests of children, is empowered to substitute its own sentence. Considering the appellant's youth, clean record, lack of parental guidance, and the absence of injuries to the victim, a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for count 2 is appropriate and proportionate. Both sentences are t…
Source excerpt
Nkosi v S (A375/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 167 (28 July 2015)
The trial court committed a material misdirection by invoking the minimum sentencing regime without informing the appellant at the outset of the trial, thereby prejudicing his fair trial rights. Although the sentences imposed for each count were individually appropriate, the failure to order the sentences for robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder to run concurrently resulted in an effective sentence of 40 years imprisonment, which was shockingly inappropriate given the close connection between the offences. Additionally, the imposition of a non-parole period of 25 years was unjust…
Source excerpt
Explore more
