South Africa Case Law

Visagie v S (CA&R23/23)

Visagie v S (CA&R23/23) [2025] ZANCHC 8 (31 January 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R23/23

Judges

Nxumalo, Williams

The court found that the trial court had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances, the seriousness of the offences, the interests of society, and the degree of remorse shown. The appellant's youth, guilty plea, and claimed remorse did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for rape. The offences were brutal, committed with threats and violence, and caused significant psychological harm to the victims. The prevalence of rape and the need for deterrenc…

Source excerpt

• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Rape
• Sentencing Discretion
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Nkosi v S (AR164/2022)

Nkosi v S (AR164/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 103 (29 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR164/2022

Judges

Henriques, Mpontshana

The appeal court found that the evidence supported only one count of rape, committed on two occasions by the appellant, and not two separate counts as originally convicted. The complainant's evidence was corroborated and her intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act. The court held that the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment was not applicable due to the absence of a finding of common purpose and the lack of evidence supporting three counts of rape. Instead, the facts supported a conviction for one count of rap…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Consent
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Common Purpose
• Multiple Acts Of Penetration
• Fair Trial Rights

S v De Bruin and Muller (K/S 21/2020)

S v De Bruin and Muller (K/S 21/2020) [2024] ZANCHC 114 (18 September 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S 21/2020

Judge

Mamosebo

Sentence judgment in a murder, kidnapping and firearm case. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the prescribed minimum sentence.

• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Dolus Eventualis
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Common Purpose
• Kidnapping
• Possession Of Unlicensed Firearm

Mathenjwa v S (A56/2020)

Mathenjwa v S (A56/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 490 (1 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A56/2020

Judges

SS Madiba, CJ van der Westhuizen

Appeal against sentence for kidnapping and rape dismissed. The High Court upheld life imprisonment, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Rape Of Minor
• Sentencing Discretion
• Appeal Against Sentence
• Appeal-against-sentence

Valashiya v The State (A114/18)

Valashiya v The State (A114/18) [2018] ZAFSHC 142 (20 September 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A114/18

Judges

Reinders, Chesiwe

The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence, finding that four years in custody awaiting trial and other factors justified departing from the prescribed minimum sentence.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Mitigating Factors
• Custody Awaiting Trial
• Criminal-law

Livanje v S (A143/2017)

Livanje v S (A143/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 221 (19 October 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A143/2017

Judges

Rampai, Daniso

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a housebreaking conviction and 10-year sentence, finding the circumstantial evidence proved entry and intent to rob.

• Housebreaking With Intent To Rob
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sentencing Discretion
• Housebreaking-with-intent-to-rob

Mbele v S (A79/2016)

Mbele v S (A79/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 157 (14 September 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A79/2016

Judges

CHESIWE, MATHEBULA

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the appellant's personal circumstances and the mitigating factors, and by not advising the appellant of the implications of the prescribed minimum sentence. The respondent conceded that the trial court overemphasized aggravating factors and that the sentence of life imprisonment was shockingly inappropriate. The appeal court held that there were compelling and substantial circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The interests of justice required that the sentence be r…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Sentencing Principles
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Mental Impairment
• Fair Trial Rights

Mbele v S (A79/2017)

Mbele v S (A79/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 181 (14 September 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A79/2017

Judges

Mathebula, Chesiwe

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by failing to warn the appellant of the prescribed minimum sentence and the consequences of a guilty verdict, thereby violating his right to a fair trial. This constituted a substantial and compelling reason to deviate from the prescribed sentence. The court further held that the trial court overemphasized aggravating factors and failed to properly balance them against mitigating factors. Given the appellant's personal circumstances and the procedural irregularity, the sentence of life imprisonment was shockingly inappropriate and…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Sentencing Discretion
• Fair Trial Rights
• Mental Impairment
• Compelling And Substantial Circumstances

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Divsion, Pretoria v Tsotetsi (170/2017)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Divsion, Pretoria v Tsotetsi (170/2017) [2017] ZASCA 83; 2017 (2) SACR 233 (SCA) (2 June 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

170/2017

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Zondi, Mathopo, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that life imprisonment was the proper sentence for two premeditated murders, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Premeditated Murder
• Contract Killing
• Sentencing Disparity
• Remorse

S.K.P v S (A766/2015)

S.K.P v S (A766/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 116 (24 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A766/2015

Judges

N V Khumalo, N P Mali

Appeal against a rape conviction and 15-year sentence dismissed. The High Court found the complainant and her mother credible and accepted the sentence as justified.

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters
• Rape Of A Minor
• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Expert Evidence
• Appeal On Sentence