S v Dlamini (2012)

Last updated
S v Dlamini
Court Supreme Court of Appeal
Full case nameS v Dlamini
Decided27 March 2012 (2012-03-27)
Case history
Appealed from KwaZulu-Natal Division
Court membership
Judges sittingFarlam JA, Van Heerden JA, Cachalia JA, Snyders JA, Majiedt JA
Case opinions
Decision byMajiedt JA

S v Dlamini [1] [2] [3] was a South African court case. The central question was of duplication of convictions.

Contents

The accused had been charged with and convicted on three counts of robbery. He was one of three perpetrators, one of whom was armed and had threatened a group of three women. The robbers had taken the women's property and departed. A 3-2 majority of the SCA found that there had been a separate intent by the robbers to rob each woman. There had, therefore, been no inappropriate duplication of convictions. [4]

Background

At 7:00pm one evening in 2002, three women were meeting at the residence of one of them in order to travel to church together. Two of the women were already in the car, ready to leave, when the third woman arrived in her own vehicle. She got out of her vehicle and as she began walking towards the car in the driveway, three men in overalls moved towards it and pointed a gun at her. They demanded that the women hand over their possessions, and also the keys to both cars. The men then took both vehicles and drove away. The appellant was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition three days later, but the firearm could not be definitely linked to the robbery.

The appellant was convicted in a regional court of three counts of robbery, possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition, and theft of a car. The three counts of robbery and the firearm offences were committed in 2002. The theft of the car was an older charge from 1999. He was sentenced to serve a total of 45 years' imprisonment.

Appeals

On appeal to the high court, the conviction for the theft of the car in 1999 was set aside and the sentence reduced to 43 years' imprisonment.

A further appeal against the sentence to the SCA, was made on the grounds that there had been a duplication of convictions, as the three robbery charges arose from actions committed with a single intent in a continuous transaction. [4]

Judgment

As to whether there had been a duplication of convictions in respect of the three counts of robbery, Majiedt JA held for the majority (Van Heerden JA and Snyders JA concurring, and Farlam JA and Cachalia JA dissenting) that there had been a separate intent by the three robbers to rob each of the three women which was executed separately. [5] [4]

The convictions were upheld, but the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, so the actual imprisonment was reduced to seventeen years.

Statutes

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft</span> Act of taking anothers property without consent

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief".

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by use of fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear; that is, it is a larceny or theft accomplished by an assault. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft by its inherently violent nature ; whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony in jurisdictions that distinguish between the two. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

Clayton Lee Waagner is an American convicted bank robber and anti-abortion terrorist. He was born Roger Waagner in North Dakota. He was an escaped fugitive during the spring, summer and fall of 2001 and was the FBI's 467th fugitive to be placed on the Ten Most Wanted list for carjackings, firearms violations, and bank robbery on September 21, 2001. He was placed on the United States Marshals Service Top 15 Fugitives list for sending more than 280 letters that claimed to contain anthrax, which he mailed to Planned Parenthood with return addresses of the Marshals Service and the Secret Service beginning in October 2001. He is currently in prison.

Sheku Kamara is an English former professional footballer who played as a right-back. After his football career ended he was imprisoned for his role fin an armed robbery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armed Career Criminal Act</span> 1984 United States federal law

The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) is a United States federal law that provides sentence enhancements for felons who commit crimes with firearms if they are convicted of certain crimes three or more times. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was a key proponent for the legislation.

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

S v Combrink is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Brand JA, Ponnan JA and Shongwe JA on May 25, 2011, with judgment handed down on June 23. BC Bredenkamp SC appeared for the appellant, and JJ Kotze for the State. Its significance lies primarily in the area of punishment and sentencing.

S v Mokgethi en Andere is an important case in South African law, with the court's determination that, in general, a perpetrator's action, which is a sine qua non for the death of the deceased, is too remote from the result to give rise to criminal liability if

  1. a failure on the part of the deceased to obtain medical or similar advice, to undergo treatment or to follow instructions as to his treatment is the immediate cause of his death;
  2. the wounding was not in itself lethal or was no longer lethal at the relevant time; and
  3. such failure was relatively unreasonable: that is, unreasonable also taking into account the characteristics, convictions, etc., of the deceased.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

S v Vika, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

In S v B is an important case in South African criminal law, often cited for its findings as to the considerations to be taken into account in sentencing.

In Hlantlalala & Others v Dyanti NO & Another 1999 (2) SACR 541 (SCA); [1999] 4 All SA 472 (SCA) an important case in South African criminal procedure, the accused were a group of women from a rural area involved in a dispute regarding entitlement to use a piece of land. The women went on to the land and harvested mielies. The complainant charged them with theft.

In S v Benjamin en 'n Ander (1980), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the two appellants were brothers who had been charged with both attempted murder and robbery with aggravated circumstances.

In S v Pakane & Others (2007), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the three appellants, all police officers, appeared on charges relating to the death of one F, who had been shot twice, once at sufficiently close range as to leave a contact wound.

In S v Naidoo 2003 (1) SACR 347 (SCA); [2002] 4 All SA 710 (SCA), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellant had been convicted, along with two other accused, on 13 counts of culpable homicide arising out of an incident where a teargas canister was thrown into a rival nightclub. In the ensuing chaos and stampede 13 of the patrons of the nightclub died.

In S v Whitehead, an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellants were convicted of public violence and culpable homicide and, in the case of the seventh appellant, of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

The appellant in Van Aardt v S, an important case in South African criminal law, had been convicted in the Grahamstown High Court of the murder of a fifteen-year-old youth, following a savage beating administered by the appellant, who suspected the deceased of theft. An appeal to the full bench of the Eastern Cape High Court was unsuccessful, so the matter came on further appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant admitted common assault, but denied that such assault had caused the death of the deceased, or that he bore a legal duty to seek medical intervention for the deceased.

Simon Majola, known as The Bruma Lake Killer, is a South African robber and serial killer who, with accomplice Themba Nkosi, was responsible for the killings of at least eight people in the vicinity of the Bruma Lake in Bruma, Gauteng. Majola was given eight life sentences, and is currently imprisoned.

References

  1. 2012 (2) SACR 1 (SCA).
  2. Case No. 362/11.
  3. [2012] ZASCA 26.
  4. 1 2 3 Miller, Michael (2013-02-01). "Two for one – Duplicate convictions for one crime". De Rebus. Retrieved 2021-11-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. Para 51.