Bhola and Others v The State

On 25 February 2013, the three appellants attempted an armed robbery at a jewellery store in Piet Retief. The robbery was thwarted when the store owner’s wife activated a panic button, causing an alarm to sound, whereupon the appellants fled empty-handed. They were arrested the following morning at a nearby filling station. The appellants were charged with and convicted of attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances. The trial court held that the offence attracted a minimum sentence under s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances, sentenced the second and third appellants to 15 years’ imprisonment and the first appellant, due to prior convictions, to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the high court was set aside. The sentences imposed by the trial court were replaced with sentences of 8 years’ imprisonment for the second and third appellants, and 13 years’ imprisonment for the first appellant.

This case clarifies that attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances does not attract the prescribed minimum sentences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. It is significant for sentencing jurisprudence as it reinforces the principle of proportionality and cautions against an overbroad application of minimum sentencing legislation.