1. Case Background

2. Judgement

3. Precedent

4. References

S v Mokela (2011) was a case that altered criminal justice and criminal procedure in the South African judicial system. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) of South Africa expanded the right to fair trial by establishing the right for the accused and his or her representatives to address the court during the sentencing period^[1]. The Supreme Court’s ruling also enforced limitations on the High Court’s ability to alter the circumstances surrounding the sentence given by the lower court unless a full justification is explicitly stated when the judgement is given^[2].

Case Background

The appellant, David William Mokela, confronted and attempted to strangle the victim, whose house Mokela and an accomplice were making an effort to rob^[2]. During this process, the accomplice stabbed the victim and Mokela stole the victim’s jewellery^[2]. After pleading guilty to the accusations, Mokela was convicted of robbery with “aggravating circumstances,” increasing the severity of the robbery and the conviction, and convicted of attempted murder^[2]. Mokela was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for robbery and 5 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder^[2]. In this case, the court ordered Mokela to serve both sentences simultaneously resulting in his period of imprisonment totaling 25 years as opposed to 30 years^[2].

Mokela appealed against the above conviction and sentence to the High Court. The appellant argued that the lower court wrongly increased his sentence based on the reasoning that the accused must receive a minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment since the accused had a criminal record including robbery^[2]. The High Court ruled in Mokela’s favor, replacing the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for robbery with “aggravating circumstances” for a term of 15 years’ imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder^[2]. However, the High Court ruled that the appellant would serve both sentences consecutively, rather than simultaneously, and lowered Mokela’s effective sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment^[2]. The High Court did not give a justification for this portion of the ruling^[2]. Mokela then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Judgement

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in a split decision. The court upheld the High Court’s ruling on the number of years sentenced, and the court agreed that the appellant was not a second offender on the count of robbery with “aggravating circumstances” ^[2]. While the appellant did commit robbery along with multiple crimes in the past, the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that the lower court must be able to prove that the accused committed a crime of that exact nature: robbery with “aggravating circumstances” ^[2].

However, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in the appellants favor regarding the argument against the consecutive sentences on the basis of Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 ^[2], which addresses the lower court’s handling of evidence during and leading up to the sentencing of the accused:

1. “A court may, before passing sentence, receive such evidence as it thinks fit in order to inform itself as to the proper sentence to be passed.
2. “The accused may address the court on any evidence received under subsection (1), as well as on the matter of the sentence, and thereafter the prosecution may likewise address the court” ^&91;3&93;.

The Supreme Court of Appeal stated that the High Court must clearly prove and justify that the lower court had any wrongdoing surrounding the effectiveness of the accused’s sentencing in order to form a judgement on that circumstance. The court declared that not only did the High Court rule on the effectiveness of the appellant’s sentence without justification, the High Court was also unable to produce evidence that the appellant and the State had an opportunity to be heard by the court during the sentencing period^[2]. The language used in Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act suggests that the court has the ability to determine whether the appellant and the state should be given an opportunity for the court to consider their statements during the sentencing period^[1]. However, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 274 as a right for the accused. The court considered that the South African judicial system has realistically given the accused this opportunity without the use of discretion^[1]. This is despite the fact that this right is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa^[4]. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed Mokela to serve his sentences simultaneously, altering Mokela’s effective sentence to an imprisonment period of 15 years^[2].

Precedent

As a result of this ruling, Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act was established as a right that the accused can request and utilize and one that the court must never nullify in order to form the most just and fully informed judgement^[1]. This is especially necessary when the terms of a sentence are altered in a judgement^[2]. This expands the right to fair trial for the accused with the goal of instilling trust in the South African judicial system^[2]. However, the court is not required to ultimately apply all statements made by the accused or the state to the sentence^[1]. This is left up to the court’s discretion based on the court’s reasonable interpretation of the evidence and each statement made^[2]. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling protected the appellant’s rights by not enforcing judgments given by the court that lack justification^[1].

References

• KIF17
• KIF18A
• KIF1B
• KIF1C
• KIF20A
• KIF21A
• KIF22
• KIF23
• KIF24
• KIF2A
• KIF2C
• KIF3A
• KIF3B
• KIF3C
• KIF4A
• KIF5A
• KIF5B
• KIF5C
• KIFA
• Kifa (disambiguation)
• KIFAP3
• Kif Augustine-Adams
• Kifaya
• Kifayah
• Kifayatullah Dihlawi