About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPJHC 61
|
|
Khazamula v S (A288/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 61 (14 March 2016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
Case number: A288/2015
DATE: 14 MARCH 2016
In the matter between:
KHAZAMULA, BEN
TEBOGO
.............................................................................................
Appellant
And
THE
STATE
............................................................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SATCHWELL J:
INTRODUCTION
1. The appellant was initially changed
with two offences – robbery with aggravating circumstances and
rape. Before us is only
the charge sheet in respect of the rape
offense. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of rape and
handed a detached section
112 statement in terms of the Criminal
Procedure Act.
2. He was correctly found guilty.
3. The appellant was sentenced to serve
a sentence of ten years imprisonment which is the minimum sentence
which may be imposed
in the absence of “substantial and
compelling circumstances” it is that sentence which is now
appealed.
4. That the appellant pleaded guilty is
no indication of remorse. After all DNA evidence which said the
learned magistrate amounted
to an overwhelming case. In this regard
see S v M
2007 (2) SACR 60
(W).
5. The appellant did spend a
substantial period of time in custody from his arrest on 14th January
2013 until his conviction and
sentence on 13th March 2015. But much
of this time was expended on a bail application which had no value at
all. It is difficult
to see how keeping a guilty person in custody as
an awaiting trial prisoner should then become the motivation for
releasing him
or her earlier from justified imprisonment
6. What must be remembered is that Act
101 of 1997 prescribed minimum and not maximum sentences. I do not
suggest that in the present
case a sentence of twelve or fifteen or
even eighteen years might be appropriate. However, I do see from the
carefully considered
and written judgment of the learned magistrate
that all relevant factors were taken into account and that the
learned magistrate
found no reason to depart from the prescribed
minimum by reducing or increasing the sentence.
7. In the result the appeal is
dismissed.
DATED AT JOHANNESBURG: 14 MARCH 2016
SATCHWELL J
I agree.
MOKOENA AJ
Counsel for Appellant: Adv JL
Kgokane
Attorneys for Appellant: Legal Aid
of SA
Counsel for Respondent: Adv N Kowlas
Attorneys for Respondent: Office of
DPP
Dates of hearing: 14th March 2016.
Date of judgment: 14th March 2016.