Goliath and Another v S (Sentence Appeal) (A99/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 527 (14 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Goliath and Another v S
Citation: [2025] ZAWCHC A99/2025
Date: 14 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant procedural and substantive issues concerning the right to a fair trial and sentencing in South African criminal law. Specifically, it explores the implications of Section 322(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which allows an appellate court to impose a harsher sentence under certain conditions. The ruling reinforces the necessity for prior notice to an appellant before considering sentence enhancement, ensuring adherence to the principles of procedural fairness enshrined in the Constitution.

Cases Cited

• Bogaards v S 2013 (1) SACR 1 (CC)
• S v Mabaso 2014 (1) SACR 299 (KZP)
• S v Malgas 2001 (2) SA 1222 (SCA)
• S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A)
• S v Petzer 1992 (1) SACR 633 (A)
• S v Kirsten 1988 (1) SA 415 (A)
• S v Beukes 1990 (2) SACR 323 (C)
• Grigor v S [2012] ZASCA 95 (1 June 2012)
• Nabolisa v S 2013 (2) SACR 221 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
• Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
• Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Rules of Court Cited

None specifically mentioned.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case involves an appeal against a seven-year term of imprisonment for two appellants convicted of attempted murder. The appeal focused solely on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial court. Notably, the issue of possible enhancement of the sentence by the appellate court was raised, and the court examined whether the trial court had exercised its sentencing discretion correctly.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include: - The extent of an appellate court's authority to impose a harsher sentence under Section 322(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. - The requirement of prior notice to an appellant regarding the consideration of a harsher sentence. - The evaluation of the trial court's sentencing discretion and the correctness of the sentence as prescribed under the relevant legal framework.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, confirming the trial court's seven-year direct imprisonment sentence. The court found no material misdirection by the trial court, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts should show deference to a trial court's discretion unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.

THE FACTS

On 22 August 2021, the appellants, father and son duo Marcelino Goliath and Piet Sederstroom, confronted the victim, Henry Coetzee, armed with a panga and an axe. The assault, which occurred within the vicinity of the victim's residence, was vicious and resulted in multiple life-threatening injuries to Coetzee. In March 2023, the appellants were convicted of attempted murder, culminating in a seven-year imprisonment sentence due to the severity of their actions.

After the trial court denied their initial appeal, the appellants sought permission to appeal the sentence, which was eventually granted. The central focus of the appeal was whether the trial court had misdirected itself in sentencing, as well as the consideration of the possibility of the appellate court imposing a harsher sentence.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide on two principal issues: firstly, whether the trial magistrate had exercised her discretion appropriately during sentencing and, if so, whether the circumstances justified imposing a harsher sentence as was contemplated by the court under Section 322(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court also had to consider procedural fairness concerning the appellants' right to abandon their appeal after being notified about potential sentence enhancement.

ANALYSIS

The judges undertook a rigorous analysis of the trial court's sentencing approach in light of established legal principles. They examined the appropriateness of the magistrate’s consideration of various factors, including the severity of the crime, the lack of remorse displayed by the appellants, and the potential impact on the victim. The court emphasized that sentencing is inherently a nuanced and judicially discretionary process, not merely a mechanical application of harsh penalties.

Moreover, the judges acknowledged the importance of previous case law, adhering to precedents which emphasized the gravity of the offence, notably the use of dangerous weapons and the specific nature of the assault which was premeditated. The judges also considered the rights of society at large, arguing that public confidence in the judicial system could be undermined by overly lenient sentences for violent crimes.

REMEDY

The court ordered the dismissal of the appeal against the sentence, reaffirming the trial court's judgment. The appellants were to continue serving their seven-year prison term without any modification to the sentence determined by the trial court.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reiterated critical legal principles, including: - The necessity of prior notice when an appellate court contemplates increasing a sentence, to ensure procedural fairness for the accused. - The appellate court's deference to the trial court's sentencing discretion, requiring significant justification for any alteration. - Recognition of the impact on victims and society in sentencing considerations, alongside the need to balance rehabilitative prospects against the seriousness of the offence. - Appellate intervention on sentencing grounds should only be pursued under specific circumstances, involving clear misdirection or an egregiously disproportionate sentence.