S v Ramollo (RCA 31/2016) [2024] ZAWCRD 21 (19 August 2024) (Sentence)

S v Ramollo (RCA 31/2016) [2024] ZAWCRD 21 (19 August 2024) (Sentence)

Loading PDF...

This document is 598.8 KB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:

Cited documents 8

Act
4
Dispute Resolution and Mediation · Peace and Security
Human Rights
Human Rights · Peace and Security
Judgment
4
Reported
Life sentence for rape of under‑16 held disproportionate; Malgas/Dodo proportionality test requires full case-specific assessment.
Criminal law – Rape where victim under 16 – Mandatory minimums under Criminal Law Amendment Act – Application of Malgas/Dodo determinative test for substantial and compelling circumstances – High Court misdirections (age, medical history) – Conviction upheld on evidence of non-consent and mens rea – Sentencing: life disproportionate; substituted 15 years with pre-trial detention credit.
Reported
SCA: provincial court's restorative, suspended compensation sentence for rape was legally incompetent; four years' imprisonment substituted.
Criminal law — rape conviction — sufficiency of evidence (victim testimony and J88); sentence competence — s 297(1) v s 297(4); State appeal under s 311 against provincial division's decision on question of law; limits on restorative justice and compensation orders for serious sexual offences.
Reported
A 17-year-old convicted of rape was sentenced to five years' imprisonment under section 276(1)(i), balancing youth, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Child offender – Rape – Whether court erred in rejecting correctional supervision – Constitution and international guidelines on sentencing of children – Appropriateness of custodial sentence versus correctional supervision for a 17-year-old convicted of a serious crime.
Reported
A probation officer’s report is unnecessary if reliable information about caregiving and a child’s best interests is placed before the court.
Sentence — probation officer’s report — not mandatory where reliable information about caregiving and child’s best interests is placed before court; primary caregiver inquiry; collateral harm to children does not automatically preclude imprisonment; S v M and MS v S considered.

Documents citing this one 0

To the top