S v Salzwedel

Last updated January 18, 2024

S v Salzwedel and Others,^[1] an important case in South African criminal law and criminal procedure, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 4 November 1999, with judgment handed down on 29 November. The judges were Mahomed CJ, Smalberger JA, Olivier JA, Melunsky AJA and Mpati AJA. GG Turner appeared for the appellant (the state); P. Myburgh, instructed by the Legal Aid Board, for the respondents, whose heads of argument were drawn up by JR Koekemoer.

The case dealt with factors to be taken into account in the imposition of sentences. Among the aggravating factors was racial motivation in the commission of a serious offence. This was found to subvert the fundamental premises of the ethos of human rights which now, after the negotiated settlement, permeated South Africa's processes of judicial interpretation and judicial discretion, including sentencing policy in punishment of criminal offences. A substantial term of imprisonment, for a murder committed out of racism, would give expression to the legitimate feelings of outrage experienced by all reasonable men and women in the community when the circumstances of the offence were disclosed and appreciated. It would also send a strong message to the country that the courts would not tolerate the commission of serious crimes perpetrated in consequence of racist and intolerant values inconsistent with the ethos of the Constitution, and that the courts would deal severely with offenders guilty of such conduct.

Facts

The respondents had been convicted, inter alia, of murder in a Provincial Division. In sentencing them for a racially motivated crime, the court a quo had taken into account as a mitigating factor (among others) that they had been influenced by the racist conditioning of the environment in which they had grown up. Finding that direct imprisonment would serve no other purpose than retribution, the court a quo sentenced the respondents to an effective sentence of three years' correctional supervision.

The State appealed against this sentence.

Judgment

On appeal, the SCA held that there came a time in the life of a nation when it had to and was able to identify practices such as racism as pathologies, and when it sought consciously and visibly and irreversibly to reject its shameful past. Substantially the same temper should inform the response of South Africa to serious crimes motivated by racism, at a time when the country had negotiated a new ethos and a clear repudiation of the racism which had for so long and so pervasively dominated so much of life and living in South Africa. The commission of serious offences perpetrated under the influence of racism subverted the fundamental premises of that ethos of human rights which now permeated the processes of judicial interpretation and judicial discretion, including sentencing policy in the punishment of criminal offences. The racial motive which had influenced the respondents to commit a serious crime had to be considered as an aggravating factor.^[2]

Imprisonment, the court found, would undoubtedly have been prejudicial to the respondents, but regard had to be had not only to the interests of the respondents, but also to the serious nature of the crime in the present case, its effect on others and the interests of the community at large. It could not properly have been said that a substantial term of imprisonment, in the circumstances of the present case, would have served no purpose other than retribution. It would also have given expression to the legitimate feelings of outrage which must have been experienced by reasonable men and women in the community when the circumstances of the offence had been disclosed and appreciated.

A lengthy term of imprisonment, sanctioned by the court, would also have served another important purpose. It would send a strong message to the country that the courts would not tolerate the commission of serious crimes in South Africa perpetrated in consequence of racist and intolerant values inconsistent with the ethos to which the Constitution committed the nation, and that the courts would deal severely with offenders guilty of such conduct.^[3]

The sentence imposed by the court a quo was accordingly set aside and replaced with an effective sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

Related Research Articles

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are usually violent and/or dangerous. Examples of crimes that result in life sentences are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

Attempted murder is a crime of attempt in various jurisdictions.

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

A Sessions Court or even known as the Court of Sessions Judge is a court of law which exists in several Commonwealth countries. A Court of Session is the highest criminal court in a district and the court of first instance for trying serious offences, i.e., those carrying punishment of imprisonment of more than seven years, life imprisonment, or death.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Preventive detention is an imprisonment that is putatively justified for non-punitive purposes, most often to prevent further criminal acts.

Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale genocidal campaign in which approximately six million European Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was a myth, fabrication or exaggeration. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Russia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania have also banned Nazi symbols. Any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.

Crime in New Zealand encompasses criminal law, crime statistics, the nature and characteristics of crime, sentencing, punishment, and public perceptions of crime. New Zealand criminal law has its origins in English criminal law, which was codified into statute by the New Zealand parliament in 1893. Although New Zealand remains a common law jurisdiction, all criminal offences and their penalties are codified in New Zealand statutes.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which dealt with the consequences of the Constitutional Court's ruling in S v Makwanyane in which capital punishment was declared to be unconstitutional. The act repealed the laws allowing for the death penalty and amended various other laws referring to death sentences or capital offences. It also established a procedure by which existing death sentences could be converted to prison sentences, and fixed minimum sentences for certain serious crimes. The act came into force on 13 November 1998, except for the minimum sentencing provisions, which came into force on 1 May 1998.

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.

S v Shilubane, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and proactive in opting for such alternatives, and recommending that these alternatives be humane and balanced.

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 Rabie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 12 September 1975, with judgment handed down on 23 September. The presiding officers were Holmes JA, Corbett JA and Kotzé AJA. The case is significant primarily in the area of sentencing, with its determination that the punishment should

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.

Capital punishment in Bangladesh is a legal form of punishment for anyone who is over 16, however in practice it will not apply to people under 18. Crimes that are currently punishable by death in Bangladesh are set out in the Penal Code 1860. These include waging war against Bangladesh, abetting mutiny, giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death, murder, assisted suicide of a child, attempted murder of a child, and kidnapping. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides that "he be hanged by the neck until he is dead." For murder cases, the Appellate Division requires trial courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the death penalty is warranted.

R v De Simoni is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was founded after the 1979 overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty by the Islamic Revolution, and its legal code is based on Islamic law or sharia, although many aspects of civil law have been retained, and it is integrated into a civil law legal system. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic, the judiciary in Iran "is an independent power". The entire legal system—"from the Supreme Court to regional courts, all the way down to local and revolutionary courts"—is under the purview of the Ministry of Justice, but in addition to a Minister of Justice and head of the Supreme Court, there is also a separate appointed Head of the Judiciary. Parliamentary bills pertaining to the constitution are vetted by the Council of Guardians.

References

S v Salzwedel and Others 2000 (1) SA 786 (SCA).

Notes

↑ 2000 (1) SA 786 (SCA).
↑ Para 13.
↑ Para 18.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] 2000 (1) SA 786 (SCA).

[2] Para 13.

[3] Para 18.

[1]

[2]

[3]