86:
was this perception that the judiciary should address. The effect of hate crimes went far beyond the victims and served to traumatise whole communities and damaged South
African society. Without the decision makers in the criminal justice system being attuned to these issues, it would not be possible properly to combat hate crimes.
85:
was one of the essential considerations in determining an appropriate sentence. The public interest against discrimination was not necessarily in discrimination between black and white but rather between people in general, who perceive others, with prejudice, to be different or inferior to them. It
63:
In an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Appeal, it was held that, accepting the evidence of the witness, the appellant (who was a very good marksman) must subjectively have foreseen, when he aimed the second shot at the same place as the first, the possibility that the bullet could ricochet after
54:
and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment, five of which were suspended on the usual conditions. An appeal to the full bench of that court was dismissed in respect of the conviction but upheld in respect of sentence, the court substituting the trial court's sentence with one of ten years'
28:
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
45:
The appellant, a farmer, had fired two shots at an unidentified person walking across farmland, who had not responded to his calls. The second shot struck and killed that person. The farmer was convicted of
64:
striking a stone or some other object and in the process strike the deceased. Regardless of that foreseeable possibility, he went on to shoot. He was therefore guilty of murder, the intention being
73:
The court held that, given the public incense with sentences which appeared to favour a particular group in society, courts had to be conscious and sensitive to cases which appeared to have
213:
169:
The witness testified that "he fired the first shot into the ground and there was dust . He shot in the direction of the person The dust was next to the person" (Para 9).
208:
203:
25:
140:
119:
102:
51:
124:
96:
66:
82:
114:
78:
34:
197:
30:
108:
81:
connotations, especially when dealing with the question of sentence.
74:
47:
24:
is an important case in South
African law, heard in the
50:by a single judge in the circuit court of the
214:Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa cases
8:
153:
7:
14:
209:South African criminal case law
204:2011 in South African case law
1:
230:
120:South African criminal law
103:Intention (criminal law)
52:North Gauteng High Court
16:South African legal case
160:2012 (1) SACR 93 (SCA).
26:Supreme Court of Appeal
125:South African law
221:
188:
185:
179:
176:
170:
167:
161:
158:
97:Dolus eventualis
67:dolus eventualis
229:
228:
224:
223:
222:
220:
219:
218:
194:
193:
192:
191:
186:
182:
177:
173:
168:
164:
159:
155:
150:
133:
92:
83:Public interest
61:
43:
17:
12:
11:
5:
227:
225:
217:
216:
211:
206:
196:
195:
190:
189:
180:
171:
162:
152:
151:
149:
146:
145:
144:
132:
129:
128:
127:
122:
117:
115:Sentence (law)
112:
105:
100:
91:
88:
79:discriminatory
60:
57:
55:imprisonment.
42:
39:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
226:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
199:
184:
181:
175:
172:
166:
163:
157:
154:
147:
142:
138:
135:
134:
130:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
110:
106:
104:
101:
99:
98:
94:
93:
89:
87:
84:
80:
76:
71:
69:
68:
58:
56:
53:
49:
40:
38:
36:
32:
27:
23:
22:
187:Paras 24-25.
183:
178:Paras 16-17.
174:
165:
156:
137:S v Combrink
136:
107:
95:
72:
65:
62:
44:
21:S v Combrink
20:
19:
18:
198:Categories
131:References
35:sentencing
31:punishment
143:93 (SCA).
139:2012 (1)
59:Judgement
109:Mens rea
90:See also
75:racial
48:murder
148:Notes
41:Facts
141:SACR
33:and
77:or
200::
70:.
37:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.