South Africa Case Law

Nkabinde v S (A52/2021)

Nkabinde v S (A52/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 572 (31 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A52/2021

Judges

Noncembu, Makhoba

The court found that the seriousness of the offence, the interests of society, and the protection of children far outweigh the personal circumstances of the appellant. The appellant's previous convictions for sexual offences against children, his lack of rehabilitation, and the community's fear for their children's safety demonstrate that he poses a serious danger to society. The time spent in custody awaiting trial is only one factor and does not constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The regional magistrate exercised h…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of A Child
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Discretion
• Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence

Johaar and Another v S (652/08)

Johaar and Another v S (652/08) [2009] ZASCA 46; 2010 (1) SACR 23 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 520 (SCA) (21 May 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

652/08

Judges

Cloete, Snyders, Griesel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regional magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the personal circumstances of each appellant, and their expressions of remorse. The magistrate had mitigated the cumulative effect of the sentences by ordering substantial concurrency and by imposing sentences below the statutory minimums where justified. The court found no material misdirection or shockingly inappropriate sentence that would warrant interference. The sentences, though severe, were proportionate t…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentences
• Cumulative Sentences
• Armed Robbery
• Mens Rea
• Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence

S v Mhlakaza and Another (386/96)

S v Mhlakaza and Another (386/96) [1997] ZASCA 7; [1997] 2 All SA 185 (A) (13 March 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

386/96

Judges

Smalberger, Harms, Zulman

The appeal concerned whether cumulative prison sentences totaling 62 years were proper. The court reduced the effective sentences to 38 years by deleting suspensions and increasing concurrency.

• Sentencing Principles
• Cumulative Sentences
• Life Imprisonment
• Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence
• Parole Policy
• Judicial Vs Executive Function