The appellant was convicted in the Regional Court in Pretoria on four counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The Regional Court, relying on section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, ordered that the sentences be served in such a manner that the appellant effectively serve 25 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Pretoria High Court, arguing that in terms of section 51(4) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, the sentences all commenced on the date they were imposed, meaning he should only serve 15 years in total rather than the effective 25 years ordered. The High Court dismissed the appeal but granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Section 51(4) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, which provides that sentences contemplated in that section are calculated from the date of sentencing, does not exclude the operation of section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Section 51(4) relates only to the calculation of the portion of a sentence that has been served, not to when service of a sentence actually commences. Section 280(2) remains applicable to sentences imposed under section 51, allowing courts to order that multiple sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently.
The Court provided examples of the absurd consequences that would follow from the appellant's interpretation: (1) A person sentenced to two five-year minimum terms simultaneously could only be detained for five years, whereas if sentenced sequentially for the same offences, they could be detained for ten years; (2) A person serving 15 years who commits another offence in prison 10 years before expiry, attracting a sentence of less than 10 years under section 51, would serve no additional time; (3) A person who committed four armed robberies could not be punished more severely than someone who committed only one. The Court noted these consequences could hardly have been the legislature's intention.
This case is significant for clarifying the interaction between minimum sentencing provisions under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and the general sentencing provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. It establishes that courts retain the discretion under section 280(2) to order that multiple sentences imposed under the minimum sentencing legislation be served consecutively rather than concurrently. This ensures that offenders who commit multiple serious crimes can receive cumulative sentences that reflect the totality of their criminal conduct, rather than being limited to the sentence for a single offence. The judgment prevents an interpretation that would have undermined the effectiveness of minimum sentencing legislation by allowing multiple serious offences to be punished as if they were a single offence.