Schoeman v Director of Public Prosecutions

The appellant, Jonathan Reagan Schoeman, was charged in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, with multiple offences arising from events between 2019 and 2020. These included murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to murder (counts 1–3), as well as unlawful possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives and drugs (counts 4–8). The State alleged that Schoeman exercised indirect control and joint possession by directing accomplices to store the illegal items at their residences. The high court acquitted him on counts 1–3 due to insufficient evidence of common purpose, but convicted him on counts 4–8. He was sentenced to an effective term of 18 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal was refused by the high court and later by two judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal. He then applied to the President of the SCA under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, who referred the refusal of leave to appeal for reconsideration by the Court.

The refusal of leave to appeal dated 30 August 2023 was set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal. The appeals against the convictions on counts 4–8 were dismissed. The appeals against the sentences on counts 4, 6 and 7 were upheld. The high court’s sentencing order was set aside and replaced with sentences resulting in an effective term of eight years’ imprisonment, backdated to 28 September 2022. The appellant was acquitted on counts 1–3 and declared unfit to possess a firearm under s 103 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.

This judgment is significant for clarifying the interpretation of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, affirming that the determination of exceptional circumstances is vested solely in the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal and is not a jurisdictional fact for reconsideration courts. It rejects and departs from the approach in Bidvest, reinforcing earlier precedent and emphasising access to justice and efficient appellate safeguards. The case also provides authoritative guidance on indirect control and joint possession in serious criminal matters and on the proper invocation of the minimum sentencing regime.