South Africa Case Law

S v Mias (Special Review) (CA&R 64/2024)

S v Mias (Special Review) (CA&R 64/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 104 (12 November 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 64/2024

Judges

Williams, Lever

The magistrate exceeded his sentencing jurisdiction by imposing a sentence of four years imprisonment for stock theft, when the statutory maximum for a non-regional magistrate's court is three years. The refusal to commit the accused for sentencing by the regional court was not justified. Given the delay in review and the full facts before the High Court, it is in the interests of justice for the High Court to finalize the matter. The accused's personal circumstances, including unemployment, family responsibilities, and lack of financial motive, were considered. The prevalence of stock theft…

Source excerpt

• Stock Theft
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Magistrates Court Powers
• Review Procedure

Mgwali v S (A97/2024)

Mgwali v S (A97/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 335 (16 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A97/2024

Judges

Mangcu-Lockwood, Kantor

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated by her brother and circumstantial evidence. The appellant's defence of consensual sex was undermined by contradictions and lack of credibility, particularly regarding the complainant's state of sobriety and the sequence of events. The medical evidence confirmed recent penetration but did not exclude consensual sex; however, the totality of evidence supported the absence of consent. The court held that the Magistrate correctly applied the minimum sentencing regime under section 51(2)(b) of the Criminal L…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Child Witness Evidence
• Consent
• Sentencing Jurisdiction

S v T.E.M

S v T.E.M [2024] ZANWHC 232 (3 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 35/2023

Judges

N G Laubscher, A B Scarrott

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of premeditated murder and imposing life imprisonment. The only evidence before the trial court was the appellant's section 112(2) statement, which did not establish planning or premeditation. The murder was committed in a fit of rage following an argument, not as a result of prior rational planning or a scheme. Therefore, the minimum sentence for premeditated murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not applicable. The trial court also exceeded its sentencing jurisdiction by imposing life im…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Premeditated Murder
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Firearm Disqualification

Ndlovu v S (A121/23)

Ndlovu v S (A121/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1804 (16 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A121/23

Judges

M P Motha, Selby Baqwa, J Yende

Appeal against a 38-year non-parole period succeeded. The High Court held the order exceeded section 276B and removed the non-parole period.

• Non Parole Period
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Separation Of Powers
• Misdirection
• Life Imprisonment
• Non-parole-period

S v Slingers (19/23)

S v Slingers (19/23) [2023] ZAWCHC 11; 2023 (1) SACR 522 (WCC) (31 January 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19/23

Judges

Lekhuleni, Henney

The High Court held that a magistrate may refer a guilty-plea matter to the regional court for sentencing under section 114 even after mitigation was heard.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 114
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Criminal-procedure
• Sentencing
• Magistrates-courts

Walters and Another v S (A83/2022)

Walters and Another v S (A83/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 918 (24 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A83/2022

Judges

K J Mogale, N Davis

The court held that the reference to section 51(2) in the charge sheet did not preclude the application of section 51(1) for sentencing purposes. The appellants were charged with murder committed in the furtherance of a common purpose, which falls under Part I of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and attracts the minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The magistrate properly informed the appellants of the sentencing risks before their plea, and their constitutional rights to a fair trial were not breached. The sentencing regime is determined by the proven elements of the offence, n…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing Regime
• Common Purpose Liability
• Murder
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Plea Of Guilty
• Sentencing Jurisdiction

Mofoka v S (A198/2022)

Mofoka v S (A198/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 631 (16 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A198/2022

Judges

Van Wyk, De Vos

On special review, the High Court corrected an unlawful five-year correctional supervision sentence for child neglect to the statutory maximum of three years.

• Child Neglect
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Correctional Supervision
• Children's Act
• Criminal Procedure
• Child-neglect

S v S.M (R03/2022;PCJC01/2021;01/2022)

S v S.M (R03/2022;PCJC01/2021;01/2022) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 27 (26 April 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

R03/2022

Judges

TV Ratshibvumo, D Greyling-Coetzer

High Court review of a child justice sentence set aside an incompetent compulsory-residence order and remitted the matter for fresh sentencing.

• Child Justice Act
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Compulsory Residence
• Previous Convictions
• Diversion
• Penal Jurisdiction

S v Manise (279/2021)

S v Manise (279/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 247; 2022 (1) SACR 412 (WCC) (30 November 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

279/2021

Judges

M Pangarker, R C A Henney

The court found that the procedural irregularities in the sequencing of the plea and sentence agreement proceedings, specifically the premature questioning and conviction of the accused before full disclosure of the agreement, did not vitiate the conviction. The accused was legally represented, admitted guilt freely and voluntarily, and the interests of justice would not be served by setting aside the conviction, especially considering the trauma to the minor victim. However, the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum permitted under section 276A(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act,…

Source excerpt

• Plea And Sentence Agreement
• Procedural Irregularity
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Sexual Offences
• Review Proceedings

Ntsala v S (A166/2020)

Ntsala v S (A166/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 227 (4 October 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A166/2020

Judges

Opperman, Page

The High Court set aside a theft-of-stock conviction, substituting a section 3 Stock Theft Act conviction for two cattle and reducing the sentence.

• Stock Theft Act
• Recent Possession Doctrine
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Competent Verdicts
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Firearms Control