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
S v Jwele (118/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 84 (13 June 2014)
On special review, the High Court held that a sentence of direct imprisonment imposed after a guilty plea under section 112(1)(a) was irregular. The conviction stood, but sentence was set aside.
S v Mashele (A175/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 68 (6 March 2009)
The magistrate misdirected himself by treating direct imprisonment as the only available sentencing option and failing to consider the possibility of a fine, despite evidence that the accused was gainfully employed and had mitigating circumstances. The review court found that the proper approach required consideration of all sentencing alternatives. The sentence of twelve months' imprisonment was set aside and replaced with a sentence of a fine of R2,000.00 or, in default of payment, twelve months' imprisonment.
Source excerpt
S v Hendricks (209/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 79 (5 August 2008)
High Court review of a robbery sentence: conviction confirmed, but 2 years’ direct imprisonment was replaced with a R1,200 fine or 8 months’ imprisonment.
S v Tlhasi (62/07) [2008] ZANWHC 10 (5 June 2008)
Appeal against sentence in a drunk-driving conviction partly succeeded. The High Court confirmed the conviction but replaced direct imprisonment with a fine and suspended imprisonment.
S v Moalodi (758/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 134 (29 November 2007)
The review court held that the magistrate erred in imposing direct imprisonment without the option of a fine for a first offender convicted of possession of dagga. The principles established in S v Makoae require that, in cases of this nature, the option of a fine should be provided to first offenders, regardless of their limited income. The accused's personal circumstances, including his status as a first offender, guilty plea, and lack of steady income, were mitigating factors. These were balanced against aggravating factors such as the prevalence of the offence and the quantity of dagga. T…
Source excerpt
S v Shirinda (132/2002) [2002] ZANWHC 48 (12 December 2002)
The court held that the fine of R10,000 imposed by the Magistrate was excessive and not reasonably possible for the accused to pay, given his monthly income of R950 as a casual worker. The trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the accused's ability to pay the fine or consider alternatives such as payment by instalments. The principles established in S v Lekgoale and S v Sithole require that the option of a fine must be real and not illusory, and that the court must inquire into the accused's financial means unless circumstances are obvious. The matter was remitted to the Mag…
Source excerpt
S v Mabona (1481/2001) [2002] ZAGPHC 5 (1 February 2002)
High Court review confirming a guilty plea conviction for an Aviation Act offence but amending sentence to include the statutory option of a R1500 fine.
S v Gatshweu (40/01) [2001] ZANWHC 30 (14 June 2001)
The High Court confirmed the conviction for possession of dagga but found the three-year prison sentence too severe and replaced it with a fine-or-imprisonment sentence, partly suspended.
Explore more
