The Criminal Law Amendment Act introduced a scheme where minimum sentences are prescribed for serious offences into the South African Criminal Law. The limitations put on the courts’ sentencing discretion were not received with unanimous approval from all quarters. The Constitutional Court declared the general working of the Act to be constitutional soon after its inception. Specific provisions pertaining to certain offences remained unpopular. The hefty sentence of 15 years imprisonment prescribed for the possession of a semi-automatic firearm is put forward as an example in this regard. High Courts avoid the minimum sentence prescribed for this offence by using different interpretational methods. Despite the sense of animosity towards the unfair contents of this provision, no ruling is made on the constitutionality thereof. An apparent deference towards the legislature could be detected on the part of the judiciary. South African jurisprudence discourages our courts to rule on the constitutionality of a law. It is only done when the defect could not be remedied by any other available means. The reluctance of our courts to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the semi-automatic provision does not promote legal certainty. High Courts attach different interpretations to the “true intention” of the legislature in order to bypass this provision. Logic dictates that inexperienced presiding officers with inferior interpretational skills would continue to hand down the minimum sentence while it remains on the law books. A sentence of fifteen years is also prescribed for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The existing common law on the interpretation of the definition of this offence provides for a wide range of human conduct to be included. Case law could be expected where the courts deviate from the prescribed sentence on a regular basis. This unscientific approach should be discouraged and a rethinking of the boundaries of this offence is suggested. The Act is doing more harm than good to our Criminal Law. The legislature could still provide other visible measures against serious crime without invading the sentencing discretion of the judiciary.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:10182 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Du Plessis, Jan Andriaan |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, LLM |
| Format | iii, 60 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metrpolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds