Recent Case: Sentencing

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (1997) 10 SACJ 122
• Date: 28 August 2019
• Published date: 28 August 2019
• Author: Managay Reddi
• Pages: 122-124

122

SACJ •

(1997) 10 •

SAS

Sentencing

MANAGAY RED D I

University of Durban-Westville

Correctional supervision

S v M1996

(2) SACR 127 (T) concerned a 14-year-old juvenile, who had been

convicted in the magistrate's court of robbery and had been sentenced to a

years' imprisonment. On review, the court found that the conviction ought to

have been one of theft and not robbery. The conviction was altered

accordingly. In considering the sentence, the court rejected a submission by

the state that correctional supervision, the suspension of a sentence, placing an

accused under the supervision of a probation officer, etc, are not true

punishments. The court held that all these sentencing options are forms of

punishment in every sense of the word. The magistrate's sentence of a years'

imprisonment was held to be shockingly inappropriate in view of the accused's

age and the fact that he was a first offender. The magistrate's sentence was

substituted with a suspended sentence of six months' imprisonment.

In

S v Dimpane

1996 (2) SACR 165 (0) the appellant appealed against a

sentence of three years' imprisonment, of which one year had been

conditionally suspended. The appellant, a 20-year-old first offender had

been convicted in the regional court of theft of a motor vehicle. His appeal was

based on the submission that the magistrate had underemphasized his

personal circumstances and had overemphasized the interests of the

community. It was further submitted that correctional supervision ought to

have been imposed.

In dismissing the first submission, the court held that it was unable to find any

misdirection in the judgment on sentence. Insofar as the second submission

was concerned, the court held that there are instances where correctional

supervision is proper. However, it was quite incorrect to suggest that it is

appropriate in all cases where the accused is a first offender. The court further

stated that even if the court of appeal was of the opinion that correctional

supervision was more appropriate than the sentence imposed by the trial court,

interference with the sentence was not justified unless an accepted ground of

appeal was present. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Formulation of suspended sentence

In

S v Tsanshana

1996 (2) SACR 157 (EC) the accused had been convicted in

the magistrate's court of theft and had been sentenced to six months'

(1997) 10 SACJ 122

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd