S v Mhene (HB 120 of 2008) [2007] ZWBHC 120 (28 November 2007)
The High Court has the authority to correct a sentencing error where the warrant of committal does not reflect the sentence pronounced in court, especially where both parties agree on the correct sentence.
- Citation
- [2007] ZWBHC 120
- Parties
- Accused: Sikhumbuzo Mhene; Respondent: The State
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2007
- Case Number
- HB 120 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Sentence Review After Conviction and Committal
- Outcome
- Sentence on warrant of committal set aside and substituted with correct sentence as pronounced in court; convictions confirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Suspension of Sentence, Restitution
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sikhumbuzo Mhene
Accused
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Sentence Review After Conviction and Committal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence recorded and warrant of committal accurately reflected the sentence pronounced in court
- 2 Whether the High Court should correct the sentencing error
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court has the authority to correct a sentencing error where the warrant of committal does not reflect the sentence pronounced in court, especially where both parties agree on the correct sentence.
Court Disposition
Sentence on warrant of committal set aside and substituted with correct sentence as pronounced in court; convictions confirmed.
Orders
- Counts 1-31 taken as one for sentence: 24 months imprisonment.
- Counts 32-41 taken as one for sentence: 12 months imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment