S v Vika

Last updated
S v Vika
Court Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Full case name S v Vika
Decided27 May 2010 (2010-05-27)
Citations2010 (2) SACR 444 (ECG); CA&R316/2009
Court membership
Judges sittingRoberson J and Pienaar AJ
Case opinions
Decision byRoberson J
Keywords
Sentence, Prescribed sentence, Minimum sentence, Charge-sheet, Substantial and compelling circumstances, Untoxication, Murder, Attempted murder, Personal circumstances, Misdirection, Deterrence

S v Vika, [1] [2] 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 (DPP, Grahamstown) appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

Contents

Facts

The appellant was convicted in a regional court on two counts of contravening section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. [3] The prohibited acts which constituted the contraventions were murder (of one Batandwa Ndalase) and attempted murder (of one Sandasile Nxiki), respectively. Regarding the appropriate punishment, the magistrate applied the provision that a contravention of section 1(1) could attract the same penalty as that which might be imposed for the unlawful act itself. He found that no substantial and compelling circumstances existed that would justify a sentence of less than the fifteen years' imprisonment stipulated in section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, [4] and proceeded to impose that sentence, treating the two counts as one.

Argument

The appellant appealed against the sentence on the grounds:

  1. that no reference had been made in the charge-sheet to the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and
  2. that the sentence was startlingly inappropriate.

Judgment

The High Court, having reserved judgment, held that it was clear from the address of the appellant's legal representative on sentence that she had been aware of the applicability of the minimum sentence provisions. She had submitted that substantial and compelling circumstances were present, and had not been surprised by the trial court's application of these provisions. Accordingly, the lack of reference thereto in the charge-sheet had not rendered the trial unfair. [5]

In its judgment on sentence, the trial court had not mentioned the appellant's personal circumstances, and had dealt only with the seriousness of the offences. The magistrate seemed to the High Court not to have appreciated the difference between the offences of which the appellant had been convicted, and the offences of murder and attempted murder. These amounted to misdirections that entitled the High Court to interfere with sentence. The appellant had a clean record. His employment, for which he was pursuing higher qualifications, together with his support for his family, showed that he was a useful and responsible member of society. On the other hand, his actions had had serious consequences, including violent loss of life. There was also a high incidence of alcohol-related assaults in society. It was in society's interests that the courts be seen to impose sentences that would deter that kind of behaviour. A custodial sentence, the court found, was the only appropriate one. It emerged from a consideration of previous cases, however, that appreciably lower sentences were imposed than would have been if the relevant accused or appellants had been convicted of the underlying prohibited acts. In casu, a sentence of seven years' imprisonment on the first count, and four years on the second, was appropriate. Since the two offences had been closely linked in time and circumstance, the sentences should run concurrently. [6]

The appeal was thus upheld: The sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment was set aside and replaced with one of seven years' and four years' imprisonment, running concurrently.

See also

Related Research Articles

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment under which the convicted individual is to remain incarcerated for the rest of their natural life. Crimes that result in life imprisonment are considered extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, theft, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per 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'.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

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.

In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole after a minimum term ("tariff") set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the home secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

<i>Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor</i> Singapore Supreme Court case

Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

Sentencing in England and Wales refers to a bench of magistrates or district judge in a magistrate's court or a judge in the Crown Court passing sentence on a person found guilty of a criminal offence. In deciding the sentence, the court will take into account a number of factors: the type of offence and how serious it is, the timing of any plea of guilty, the defendant's character and antecedents, including their criminal record and the defendant's personal circumstances such as their financial circumstances in the case of a fine being imposed.

<i>Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor</i> A landmark decision in 1980 from Singapore

Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences. The appellants contended that the presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA violated Article 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and that the mandatory death penalty was arbitrary and violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

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 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 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

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 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.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>Dinsdale v R</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

References

Books

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2010 (2) SACR 444 (ECG).
  2. ↑ CA&R316/2009.
  3. ↑ Act 1 of 1988.
  4. ↑ Act 105 of 1997.
  5. ↑ Paras 4-5.
  6. ↑ Paras 16–27.
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.