Full case name S v Dlamini End date March 27, 2012 | Decision by Majiedt JA | |
Court Supreme Court of Appeal Decided 27 March 2012 (2012-03-27) Appealed from KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg Judges sitting Farlam JA, Van Heerden JA, Cachalia JA, Snyders JA, Majiedt JA | ||
S v Dlamini is an important recent case in South African law. An appeal from the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg (where Ntshangase J and Gorven AJ presided), it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), by Farlam JA, Van Heerden JA, Cachalia JA, Snyders JA and Majiedt JA, on February 17, 2012, with judgment handed down on March 27, 2012. Counsel for the appellant was KJ Kemp SC; AA Watt appeared for the state. The appellant's attorneys were Hulley & Associates Inc, Durban.
Contents
The central question was of duplication of convictions. 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 majority of the SCA found that there had been a separate intent by the robbers to rob each woman. There had, therefore, been no duplication of convictions.
Facts
At 19h00 one evening, 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 Volvo that was to be used to this end when the third woman arrived by car. As she began walking towards the Volvo in the driveway, three men in overalls moved towards the Volvo and pointed a gun at the last-arriving woman. They demanded that the women hand over their possessions, and also the keys to both cars. The women handed over everything. The men got into the two cars and drove off. The appellant was found in possession of the firearm and ammunition three days later, but there was nothing to link that firearm 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 in 1999. He was sentenced to serve a total of 45 years' imprisonment.
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.
Argument
In a further appeal against sentence, to the SCA, counsel for the state submitted 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. The appellant was allowed to amend the grounds of appeal to include an appeal against the additional convictions for robbery.
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, and that separate intent in respect of each woman was executed separately in respect of each woman.
Both the single-intent and continuous-transaction test, and the test as to whether the evidence necessary to establish one crime involved proving another crime, compelled the court to the "ineluctable" conclusion that there were three separate robberies.
The convictions were accordingly upheld, but the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, to the extent that the effective period of imprisonment was seventeen years.