Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 19 - Cases - Coggle Diagram
Criminal Procedure - Chapter 19 - Cases
S v B
They were still a child, but the Child Justice Act was not in existence yet and the CPA allowed for a discretion where the court could apply the minimum sentence to a 16 – 18 year old child, this minimum occasionally being life in prison
It must be determined when sentencing, the child’s:
Age
Circumstances and maturity
Emotional and intellectual capacity
The accused was very close to becoming an adult – no difference between them and an adult
The factors important in this case
The best interests of the child
The least possible restrictive deprivation of the child's liberty
The principle of proportionality
S v Bull
The requirements to be accused of being a dangerous criminal:
The court must be satisfied that the accused represents a danger to the physical or mental well-being of other persons
That the community should be protected against the accused
The court held, that where someone is declared a dangerous or habitual criminal there is still court discretion with regards to sentencing, and the person is eligible for parole, this being the saving grace for life imprisonment not being in contravention with S12
S286 of the CPA – the criminals were declared dangerous criminals and the court ordered an initial 35 years imprisonment – appealed and changed to 25 years imprisonment
B and his accomplices were found guilty, after an armed robbery in Mitchells plain, of robbery with aggravating circumstances, as well as the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
Thus this was found to be consistent with the Constitution, provided that there is judicial oversight and period review of the accused’s life in prison.
The constitutionality of declaring a person a psychopath was questioned in terms of S12 of the Constitution that stipulated a person cannot be punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way – S286 of the CPA