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
Mponzo v S (A322/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 333 (10 December 2013)
The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence, finding the regional court misdirected itself by failing to weigh the appellant’s youth and other mitigating factors cumulatively.
Mkalipi v S (A209/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 288 (10 August 2012)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a seven-year sentence for attempted murder, finding no basis to interfere with the magistrate’s discretion.
Piyoos v S (A583/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 385 (30 April 2010)
The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence, finding substantial and compelling circumstances for a first offender aged 18 and reducing the minimum sentence.
S v Tshepiso (A647/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 55 (15 May 2009)
The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances, finding the magistrate had overlooked mitigating factors and reducing the sentence to 8 years.
S v Madule (59/92) [1992] ZASCA 231 (27 November 1992)
The court upheld the appeal against sentence, setting aside the death penalty and replacing it with 25 years’ imprisonment for a murder committed during a robbery.
S v Cotton (462/91) [1992] ZASCA 20; [1992] 2 All SA 45 (A) (12 March 1992)
The Appellate Division set aside a death sentence for murder and substituted life imprisonment, holding that the appellant’s youth and immaturity were substantial mitigating factors.
S v Jantjies and Another (199/88) [1988] ZASCA 146 (24 November 1988)
The court found that first appellant actively associated himself with the killing and robbery, and there was no reasonable possibility that he acted under compulsion. His conduct after the shooting confirmed participation in a pre-arranged plan. The defence of compulsion was rejected due to lack of credible evidence. Regarding second appellant, the court held that his youth, epilepsy, and background did not constitute extenuating circumstances. Medical evidence established that he was conscious and accountable at the time of the offence, and his role was dominant. The application to reopen th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
