The appellant, Sabelo Dan Cele, was convicted in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, together with co-accused, on counts of murder, attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The murder arose from a failed robbery and was committed with dolus eventualis. The murder count attracted a prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, but the trial court found substantial and compelling circumstances and imposed determinate sentences. The trial court imposed sentences resulting in an effective term of 41 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the full court marginally reduced one sentence but left the effective sentence unchanged. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against sentence only, contending that the trial court committed an irregularity by refusing to accept mitigating factors from the bar and that the cumulative sentence was shockingly inappropriate.
The appeal against sentence was upheld. The sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the full court was set aside and replaced with sentences of 18 years’ imprisonment for murder, 10 years for attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances, 5 years for unlawful possession of a firearm, and 6 months for unlawful possession of ammunition. The sentences for firearm and ammunition possession were ordered to run concurrently with the murder sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment, antedated to 6 May 2013.
The case is significant for clarifying the proper application of s 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding mitigation of sentence and confirming that courts may require mitigating facts to be presented under oath. It reinforces established principles governing appellate interference in sentencing, particularly the distinction between misdirection and disparity. Importantly, it underscores the duty of sentencing courts to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences and cautions against imposing excessively long determinate sentences that effectively undermine prospects of rehabilitation and parole.