About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAWCHC 142
|
|
S v Doty (A143/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 142 (19 August 2010)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT)
Case Number: A143/2010
Coram:
Le Grange, J et Nqewu, AJ
In the matter between:
LORENZO
DOTY
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON 19 AUGUST 2010
Le
Grange, J
:
[1] I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment
herein prepared by Acting Judge Ngewu. I am in agreement with the
result.
Regrettably, I differ with some of the views expressed by her
in arriving at the result.
[2]
For instance in paragraph [20] she held that,
"in
cases of serious crimes, the personal circumstances of an offender do
not come to the fore".
This
is bad in law and at variance with the well established principles on
sentencing. Due to trial courts not
having
sufficient regard to the personal circumstances of the offender, many
appeals have succeeded, on this basis alone, in our
courts. In this
regard see: (Guide to Sentencing in South Africa 2
nd
Edition by SS Terblance - at para 7.2.4 and the relevant case law
referred to therein.)
[3] The principal reason
why the Court
a
quo
misdirected
itself in not imposing an appropriate sentence was, it seems, a
direct result of its failure to properly consider and
weigh up the
Appellant's personal circumstances against the interest of the
society, the seriousness of the offence and whether
the prescribed
minimum sentence is unjust and disproportionate in the particular
circumstances of this case. See:
S
v Vilakazi
2009 (1) SACR 552
at 560
e.
[4] The trial
magistrate, in his reasons for granting leave to appeal against the
imposed sentence a few weeks later after the conviction
and sentence,
clearly suggested that the prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years
for the Appellant, as a young offender was indeed
unduly harsh, but
was bound to impose it. At page 73 of the record, the following was
recorded by the trial magistrate:-
" Dit is
inderdaad so dat 15 jaar gevangenisstraf vir 'n Jong persoon 'n fang
tyd is. Dit het en sal 'n dramatiese uitwerking
he op die lewe van 'n
persoon soos die beskuldigde. Ek het egter gevoei dat my hande tot 'n
groot mate gebind was deur die minimum
vonnis Wetgewing, omdat ek nie
wesenlike en dwingende omstandighede kon op rekord plaas om 'n
afwyking daar te stel nie.
Ek kan egter die
moontlikheid dat 'n ander Hof deur ander oe mag kyk na die
omstandighede van hierdie saak en inderdaad bevind dat
daar wesenlike
en dwingende omstandighede bestaan en dat dit derhalwe geregverdig is
dat daar afgewyk word van die minimum vonnis
wetgewing nie en
derhalwe dat 'n vonnis minder as 15 jaar gevangenisstraf opgele
behoort te word."
[5] Having regard to the
Appellant's personal circumstances, and upon a consideration of all
the factors pertaining to sentence,
I am satisfied that the
imposition of the prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years would be
unjust and disproportionate to the crime,
the Appellant and the needs
of the society. A sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, in my view,
would be a more just and equitable
sentence in the circumstances of
this matter.
[6] It follows that
the appeal against sentence must succeed. [7] In the result the
following order is made:-
The
appeal against sentence succeeds.
The
sentence is set aside and substituted with the following:
'Ten (10) years' direct
imprisonment".
LE
GRANGE, J