Segwati v The State

The appellant was convicted in the regional court of theft and attempted theft committed against his employer, Emperor’s Palace Casino, on the same day. He stole R800 000 and attempted to steal a further R200 000. At sentencing, the trial court treated the appellant as a third offender under s 51(2)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, based on several prior theft and fraud convictions that were more than 14 years old. Relying on this classification, the court imposed the prescribed minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused by both the regional court and, on petition under s 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, by the Gauteng Division of the High Court.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court refusing leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting the appellant leave to appeal to that court solely against the sentence imposed for his convictions of theft and attempted theft.

The case underscores the correct application of s 271A of the Criminal Procedure Act in sentencing and confirms that stale previous convictions may not be used to trigger prescribed minimum sentences. It also clarifies the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Appeal when dealing with appeals against refusals of leave to appeal, reinforcing procedural discipline in criminal appeals.