About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAWCHC 14
|
|
Hendricks v S (A420/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 14 (18 February 2015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION,
CAPE TOWN
Case No: A420/14
DATE: 18 FEBRUARY 2015
In the matter between:
MOEGAMAT KASHIEF
HENDRICKS
................................................................................
Appellant
Versus
THE
STATE
............................................................................................................................
Respondent
CORRRECTION OF SENTENCE
GAMBLE, J:
[1] On 18 February 2015 the appeal in
this matter was upheld in part: the sentence on count 3 was reduced
from 25 years to 15 years
imprisonment. In addition it was ordered
that part of the sentence (2 years) on count 3 should run
concurrently with the sentences
on counts 1,2,4 and 5 (all of which
were to run concurrently too). The court further recorded that the
effective sentence was to
be 25 years imprisonment.
[2] On 27 February 2015 the Department
of Correctional Services drew to the attention of the Registrar of
this court an inconsistency
in the sentence, viz, that by ordering
two years of the sentence on count 3 to run concurrently with the
remaining sentence, the
effective period of imprisonment was in fact
28 years and not 25 years.
[3] It was at all material times the
intention of the 3 judges in this court that the effective sentence
imposed on the appellant
should be reduced to 25 years imprisonment.
The direction that two years of the sentence on count 3 rather than 5
years should
run concurrently is a typographical error which eluded
all 3 members of the court.
[4] The provisions of
section 298
of
the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
cannot be applied in the
instant case since the time period of more than a week that has
elapsed in the interim renders the corrective
action contemplated in
that section not sufficiently immediate. However, this court is
entitled, under the common law, to correct
an order or sentence
provided the tenor of the earlier order is preserved. (S v Wells
1990(1) SA 816(A) at 820 C-D).
[5] In my view, the tenor of our order
was that the appellant’s sentence should be reduced from an
effective sentence of 44
years to one of 25 years. In the
circumstances the period of “two years” referred to in
para 27 of the judgment falls
to be corrected and replaced with the
period of “five years” in order to give effect to our
intention.
[7] In the circumstances I propose that
para 27 of the judgment be corrected and that word “two”
in the 2nd line thereof
to be substituted by the word “five”.
PAL GAMBLE
I agree: It is so
ordered.
A P BLIGNAULT
B P MANTAME
I agree