Main Issue: Corporal punishment of juveniles

Findings: The issue is whether the sentence of juvenile whipping, pursuant to the provisions of section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act, This case involved six juveniles who had been sentenced to receive "moderate correction" of a number of strokes with a light cane in terms of section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. The Constitutional Court had to decide whether the sentence of juvenile whipping was unconstitutional.  The Court declared corporal punishment unconstitutional on the ground that it violates dignity and it violates the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. It found that juvenile whipping violated the dignity of the juvenile as well as that of the person administering the whipping.  The Constitutional Court declared section 294 unconstitutional. The effect of this is that whipping is no longer a punishment that the courts may impose.

Main Issue: Murder and life imprisonment on youthful offender/ applicability of minimum sentencing to juveniles

Findings: The fact that an offender is under 18 although over 16 at the time of the offence automatically confers a discretion on the sentencing court which is then free to depart from the prescribed minimum sentence. The trial court in this case erred in not exercising discretion and sentence is set aside and replaced with one of 18 years’ imprisonment from life imprisonment. In conclusion, Court ruled that minimum sentences do not apply to juveniles.

Main Issue: Minimum sentence and accused charged with housebreaking with intent to rape and rape

Findings: Appellants, who were recorded to be 18 and 19 at the time of the trial, convicted upon pleading guilty and were each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Court stated that the trial court misdirected itself by sentencing the two youthful appellants, essentially without an enquiry into the facts at all. In reality, the Appellants, who were recorded to be 18 and 19 at the time of the trial, convicted upon pleading guilty and were each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Court stated that the trial court misdirected itself by sentencing the two youthful appellants, essentially without an enquiry into the facts at all. In reality, the learned magistrate imposed sentence on the basis of little more than the allegations in the charge sheet. There were also not facts before the court consideration could have been made on seriousness of the offence, personal circumstances, and the interest of the community. Where lengthy prison sentences are considered for youthful offender, the need for that consideration is even more important. In the circumstances, Court stated that magistrate should at least expect a medical report pertaining to the complainant and a probation officer report regarding the circumstances of the appellants.  Accordingly sentence set aside and referred for re-sentencing after proper investigation.

Main Issue: Sentencing  of minor

Findings: Sentence – appeal by state against sentence imposed on a 14 year old girl upon conviction for murder of her grandmother and theft – whether postponement of the passing of sentence coupled with 36 months of correctional supervision in terms of s 276(1)(h) of Act 51 of 1977 on certain conditions appropriate, given the severity of the offence – traditional and post constitutional approach to sentencing with respect to a child offender (under 18 years old) considered. Appellate court’s entitlement to interfere also considered. Court replaced sentence even though the appellant was substantially successful in the appeal.

Main Issue: Young offenders and sentencing

Findings:  Court set aside sentence reasoning that for a first time offender who is 18, pre-sentencing report is important, and character of accused, personal circumstances and background need be taken before imposing a severe sentence of 18 years.

Main Issue: Fair trial/representation

Findings: The magistrate ignored the need of the accused to be assisted by a parent or a guardian which was considered to be an irregularity and accordingly the conviction and sentence was set aside.

Main Issue: House breaking/sentence

Findings: Court held that sentence of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended on two accused convicted of housebreaking and theft was too severe and replaced with 6 months wholly suspended for three years.

Main Issue: Kidnapping and Rape/competence of complainant as a witness

Findings: Court reasoned that the court a quo has erred in refusing to allow the complainant as a witness because the evidence led to show the incompetency of the complainant as suffering from a mental illness and as a result that she was deprived of her reason was not satisfactory. Re-trial ordered.

Main Issue: Sentencing and mitigating factors

Findings: Appellant was convicted of dealing dagga but Court found that appellant's youthfulness and consequent immaturity must have served as a ground in assessing appellant's ability to pay fine imposed. Therefore a lesser fine and prison sentence is imposed.

Main Issue: House breaking and theft by young offenders/sentence/ the existence of mitigating grounds for youth offenders

Findings: The Court found that he offenders were young first time offenders and reduced the 12 months on each count to a total of 12 months.

Main Issue: Accused sentenced to R800 or 6 months imprisonment in default but the Court held that in the absence of facilities in the Transkei for suitably punishing a child, entire sentence should be suspended to avoid accused going to prison.

Findings: Female juvenile offender/absence of facilities

Main Issue: Juvenile offender (14) and sentencing for assault

Findings: Court held that the trial court has erred in sentencing the accused to R400 or 100 days imprisonment as the limit the magistrate could impose is R300 or 60 days imprisonment and replaced the sentence with the latter.

Findings: Accused (17 and 19) were convicted of theft for cutting down a tree and made poles (R400) from the wood. Court held that sentence of 12 months imprisonment is too harsh as value of property stolen, age (and also there was no probation officer report) should be considered. Sentence replaced with fully suspended 6 months imprisonment.

Main Issue: Housebreaking with intent to steal and sentencing of juvenile offenders (aged 16, 17, 13)

Findings: Court finding that juveniles clearly without means to pay fine, and having regard to the paucity of facilities in the Transkei for suitable forms of sanction for young offenders, suspended entire sentence for 5 years.

Main Issue: Imposition of life sentence on juveniles and mandatory

Findings: When the accused (along with another 21 years old accomplice), who was 16 at the time of the commission of the offence, was first sentenced, his guilty plea, lack of previous conviction and youth did not assist him. Court imposed life sentence as mandatory. On appeal, he convinced a full bench that it was not bound to impose the prescribed sentence and argued that a close reading of the provisions of s51 of the 1997 Criminal Law Amendment Act meant that courts were not compelled to pass sentences on offenders between the age of 16 and 18 years in the absence of “substantial and compelling” circumstances. Court ruled that the sentencing court had wrongly held itself bound to impose the mandatory sentence. After considering the best interest of the child, seriousness of the offence and the interest of society, Court imposed a sentence of 18 years for the murder, with which sentences for the lesser crimes of housebreaking would run concurrently.