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
Mtalingoane v S (Appeal) (CA32/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 138 (7 August 2025)
The North West High Court dismissed an appeal against a life sentence for rape of a 14-year-old, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances.
Mabela v S (Appeal) (A15/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 141 (29 July 2025)
The court found that the appellant had inflicted grievous bodily harm on the complainant during the commission of rape, triggering the minimum sentence of life imprisonment under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The appellant failed to demonstrate substantial and compelling circumstances warranting deviation from the prescribed sentence. His lack of remorse, refusal to accept responsibility, and the aggravating factors—including breach of trust, brutality, and the prevalence of such offences—outweighed any mitigating factors. The appellant’s personal circumstances, including his youth and stat…
Source excerpt
C.V.D.M v S (Appeal) (A180/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 299 (22 July 2025)
The appeal court found that the Regional Magistrate properly exercised her sentencing discretion, fully considered the appellant's personal circumstances, the interests of the community, and the gravity of the offences. The appellant's alleged anger issues and drug use did not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances. His admission of guilt was limited to the attempted murder and was compelled by overwhelming evidence, not genuine remorse. The brutality, cruelty, and inhumanity of the crimes, including repeated rapes, sexual assault, and attempted murder, justified the imposition o…
Source excerpt
B.B v S (Appeal) (A95/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 270 (25 June 2025)
The appeal court found that the Regional Magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances, previous conviction, the interests of the community, and the prevalence of gender-based violence. The court held that the brutality and sustained nature of the assault, the lack of genuine remorse, and the seriousness of the offence outweighed any mitigating factors. No substantial and compelling reasons existed to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of 20 years' direct imprisonment for a second offender convicted of murder. The…
Source excerpt
King and Another v S (Appeal) (CA50/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 83 (13 May 2025)
Appeal court upheld life sentences for premeditated murder, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances and no sentencing misdirection.
Khumalo v S (Appeal) (A115/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 379 (29 April 2025)
The appeal court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion and considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's guilty plea, personal circumstances, and the seriousness of the offence. The appellant's previous convictions for violent crimes and the fact that he was on parole at the time of the offence weighed heavily against him. The court held that the guilty plea and personal circumstances did not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for rape involving grievo…
Source excerpt
S v Ntinga and Another (CCD55/2023) [2025] ZAKZPHC 33 (28 March 2025)
Sentencing judgment in a murder, robbery and kidnapping case. The court imposed life imprisonment on accused one and 25 years on accused two, with firearm disqualifications.
S v Prinsloo (Sentence) (CC10/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 327 (24 March 2025)
The High Court sentenced Paul Philippus Prinsloo to effective 25 years for two premeditated murders, finding substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from life imprisonment.
M.E.M v S (A67/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 227 (6 March 2025)
Appeal against a life sentence for raping the appellant’s minor daughter was dismissed. The High Court found no substantial and compelling circumstances.
SASBO obo Neville v Standard Bank Judgment and Others (JR165/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 31 (29 January 2025)
The court found that the commissioner’s decision that the applicant’s dismissal was substantively fair was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant admitted to breaching the Bank’s activation rule by using her own funds to activate ninety-nine accounts, including accounts opened by colleagues, with the intention to meet sales targets and avoid performance management. Her admissions in statements and declarations demonstrated awareness of wrongdoing and intent to deceive. The applicant’s arguments regarding unclear rules, lack of intent, remorse, and inconsistent discipline were…
Source excerpt
Explore more
