The appellant was convicted in the Regional Court, Orlando, on three counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances under s 51(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, one count of unlawful possession of a semi-automatic firearm, and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. The trial court imposed a globular (composite) sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for the three robbery counts taken together, plus additional sentences for the firearm and ammunition offences, resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. On appeal to the Gauteng Local Division, one robbery conviction (count 1) was set aside, but the composite sentence remained unchanged. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against sentence only, arguing that the retained globular sentence unjustly failed to reflect his partial success on appeal.
The appeal against sentence succeeded. The globular sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for counts 1, 2 and 3 was set aside. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each of counts 2 and 3, ordered to run concurrently in terms of s 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition remained unchanged. The effective sentence remained 20 years’ imprisonment, antedated to 3 May 2012.
This case is significant for its strong reaffirmation of the general undesirability of globular sentences in South African criminal law, especially where an accused pleads not guilty and later succeeds partially on appeal. It highlights the duty of appellate courts to ensure that an accused derives real benefit from a conviction being set aside and underscores the importance of imposing separate sentences with concurrency orders rather than composite sentences.