Ntoni v S (40/2012) [2022] ZAFSHC 57 (4 March 2022)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAFSHC 57
|

|

Ntoni v S (40/2012) [2022] ZAFSHC 57 (4 March 2022)

IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case number:
40/2012
In the matter
between:
JOSEPH
NTONI
Applicant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
CORAM:
VAN ZYL, J
HEARD
ON:
17 SEPTEMBER 2021
DELIVERED
ON:
4 MARCH 2022
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this
Division
against the convictions and the sentences of the applicant.
The trial served before me.
[2]
The applicant was accused 2 of 4 accused persons.  On 16 January
2013
all 4 of the accused persons were convicted on the following
counts:
Count 1:
Escape from lawful custody.
Count 2:
Robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Count 3:
Murder.
Count 5:
Robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Count 6:
Kidnapping.
Count 7:
Attempted murder.
Count 8:
Murder.
[3]
On 18 January 2013 the applicant, as accused 2, was sentenced as
follows:
Count 1:
10 (ten) years imprisonment.
Count 2:
20 (twenty) years imprisonment.
Count 3:
Life imprisonment.
Count 5:
20 (twenty) years imprisonment.
Count 6:
6 (six) years imprisonment.
Count 7:
10 (ten) years imprisonment.
Count 8:
Life imprisonment.
I further ordered
that all the foresaid sentences were to be served concurrently with
one another and furthermore concurrently with
any other sentences
which the applicant were serving at the time.
Condonation:
[4]
The applicant is seeking condonation for the late lodging of his
application
for leave to appeal.  In support of the application
for condonation, the applicant filed an affidavit in which he set
out,
inter alia,
the reasons for the failure to have timeously
filed his application for leave to appeal.  He also dealt with
the grounds for
his application for leave to appeal.
[5]
Mr Strauss, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, indicated that
the
State is not opposing the application for condonation since it
considers it in the interest of justice that the merits of the
application
for leave to appeal be dealt with.
[6]
I duly considered the explanation by the applicant for the delay in
the
lodging of this application.  It is evident that it has been
the applicant`s intention since the convictions and the imposition
of
the sentences to lodge an application for leave to appeal. However,
due to the lack of funds and subsequent administrative issues
experienced at the prison, which were further negatively impacted
upon by the Covid 19-pandemic, the applicant was unable to have
lodged this application at any earlier stage.
[7]
Without pertinently expressing my views on the applicant’s
prospects of
success with the application for leave to appeal, it is
trite that a full, complete and satisfactory explanation for the
delay may
excuse
weak
prospects of success.
[8]
In the circumstances and in the exercise of my discretion I deem it
appropriate
that condonation be granted for the late filing of the
application for leave to appeal.
Ad
Merits:
Convictions:
[9]
The grounds for the application for leave to appeal against the
convictions
of the applicant, are set out in his affidavit as
follows:
“
4.1
That the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of Barry Tinte
that the escape was premeditated
as he was a single witness in this
regard.
4.2
That the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of Captain
Wagner, Warrant
Officer Malakwane and Warrant Officer Mofokeng that
the leg cuffs were unlocked at the time the applicant alighted the
police van.
4.3
That the trial court erred in finding that the State proved its case
beyond a
reasonable doubt as there was no evidence placed on record
implicating me in the commission of the offences.
4.4
That the trial court erred in finding that the contradictions in the
evidence
of the State witnesses were not material in nature.
4.5
That the trial court erred in finding I formed a common purpose with
my pro-accused
and aligned myself with the actions which led to the
death of Ms Botes.”
[10]
At the commencement of the trial, all four accused persons pleaded
not guilty
on all the counts. In respect of the applicant, Ms Kruger,
who is also representing the applicant in the present application,
handed
a written plea explanation on behalf of the applicant, to
Court, which was received as Exhibit “A”.  The relevant part
thereof
reads as follows:
“
Ek
en my mede-beskuldigdes moes op die dag van die voorval in die hof te
Harrismith verskyn.  Ek en beskuldigde 4 was saam geboei
gewees
en ons het laaste uit die vangwa geklim.  Met die wat ek afklim
hoor ek skote wat afgevuur word en het onmiddellik skuiling
gesoek
onder die vangwa.  Beskuldigde 4 het die voetboeie se sleutels
by beskuldigde 1 gekry en homself bevry.  Hy het
daarna die
sleutels aan my oorhandig waarna ek myself bevry het.  Ek het
toe besluit om verder skuiling te soek en het na die
hofgebou
gehardloop.  Ek het nog steeds skote gehoor en het besluit om na
buite die hofgebou te hardloop.  Ek hardloop
in die straat af
wat voor die hofgebou beweeg en die volgende oomblik stop ʼn Mercedes
Benz voertuig langs my.  Die voertuig
was bestuur deur een van
my mede-gevangenes en was daar ʼn blanke vrou in die voertuig.
Ek weet nie hoe het hy in besit gekom
van die voertuig nie.  Ek
probeer nog weg te kom van die skote en klim in die voertuig in.
Net daar klim my mede-beskuldigdes
ook in en ons jaag weg.  Ek
het af gekyk en agter die sitplek weggekruip.  Die polisie
agtervolg ons en skiet op ons.
Ek het op ʼn stadium gehoor dat
iemand terugskiet, maar kon nie sien wie dit was nie.  Die
bestuurder het beheer oor die voertuig
verloor en teen ʼn gebou
gebots.  Ek het my bewussyn verloor en was in die hospitaal
opgeneem.  Ek het nie met my mede-beskuldigdes
beplan om te
ontsnap nie en het probeer om weg te kom van die skote wat geskiet
was.  Ek het nie gesien hoe die oorledene op
aanklag 3 geskiet
word nie en dra ook nie kennis van hoe sy vuurwapens hom ontneem is
nie.  Ek dra ook nie kennis van hoe die
ander klagtes afgespeel
het nie en ontken derhalwe my betrokkenheid by die voorval.  Ek
het egter wel gesien dat beskuldigde
1 in besit was van ʼn R5 geweer,
maar weet nie hoe hy in besit daarvan gekom het nie.”
[11]
The accused persons, together with the state witness, Barry Tinte,
and another
prisoner, Moselane, was brought as prisoners from the
Groenpunt Prison at Vereeniging to Harrismith’s Magistrate’s
Court for
purposes of appearing in Court on the day of the incident.
The relevant incident occurred when the police van which transported
the aforesaid prisoners was parked at the back of the Harrismith
Magistrate’s Court and the prisoners off-loaded from the police
van.  The deceased in count 3, Const. Sebekulu, together with
Capt. Wagner, transported the prisoners in the police van. In
the
ordeal which subsequently followed, Const. Sebekulu was shot dead.
Ms Botes, who is the deceased in count 8, was an innocent
bystander
when the four accused persons and Moselane got into her Mercedes Benz
vehicle and tried to flee with her in the vehicle.
She passed
away as a result of the injuries she suffered when the Mercedes Benz
vehicle collided with a wall.
[12]
I summarised the essence of the dispute between the State and the
defence in
my judgment on the convictions as follows:
“
Die
wesenlike respek tussen die Staat en die verdediging, en wat ook ʼn
essensiële effek op die beoordeling van die verdere gebeure
van die
dag sal hê, is die vraag wie en welke optrede die skietery by die
landdroshof begin of veroorsaak het.  Volgens die
Staat is die
gevangenes wat die skietery begin het, as gevolg van die feit dat
hulle wou ontsnap, terwyl dit die beskuldigdes se
weergawe is dat die
polisie dit begin het, terwyl hulle as onskuldige persone in die
situasie vasgevang was.”
[13]
Capt. Wagner, W/O Malakwane, W/O Mofokeng, Barry Tinte, Capt.
Maketekete, W/O
Mateo, W/O Hlalele, W/O Mokoena and Dr Liebenberg
were all called as witnesses in support of the State’s case.
[14]
Accused 1, 3 and 4 testified in their own defence, but the applicant
elected
to remain silent, not to present any evidence in support of
his own case.
[15]
With regard to the evidence of Capt. Wagner, W/O Malakwane and W/O
Mofokeng pertaining
to the question whether the leg cuffs of the
prisoners had already been unlocked at the time when they alighted
the police van, it
is evident that they all three testified to that
effect.  In addition, I found as follows with regard to this
issue:
“
Hierdie
weergawes word op wesenlike wyse gestaaf deur die getuienis van Barry
Tinte, synde dat die voetboeie reeds in die vangwa oopgesluit
was en
bloot liggies ingedruk was om dit te laat lyk of dit nog in takt is.
Al hierdie getuies is dit ook eens dat gegewe die
vinnige verloop van
die gebeure daar nie geleentheid of tyd was vir die gevangenes om nog
eers die voetboeie oop te sluit op die
toneel soos deur hulle beweer
nie.”
[16]
With regard to my acceptance of the evidence of Barry Tinte, who was
a single
witness with regard to my finding that the escape was
premeditated, I specifically dealt with this aspect in my judgment
and found
that essential corroboration existed for his version:
“
Die
feit is egter dat wat Barry Tinte se getuienis met betrekking tot die
beplanning van die ontsnapping as sodanig betref, is daar
geen
weerspreking daarvan nie, behalwe die beskuldigdes se eie ontkenning
daarvan.  Daarteenoor is daar wesenlike stawing vir
sy weergawe
wat betref hoe die ontsnapping beplan is, aangesien die gebeure soos
dit afgespeel het, wesenlik ooreenstem met dit wat
hy beweer beplan
is.
Nog
meer kontemporêre stawing vir sy weergawe met betrekking tot die
beplanning om te ontsnap is geleë in die getuienis van Kapt.
Maketekete, wie bevestig dat Barry Tinte hom inderdaad vooraf omtrent
die beplande ontsnapping ingelig het en ten opsigte waarvan
hy op 1
April 2011 ʼn aantekening in sy dagboek gemaak het, welke dagboek ook
steeds beskikbaar is.
Van
die detail van die beplanning, soos dit reeds op daardie stadium deur
Barry Tinte aan hom oorgedra was, stem ook ooreen met hoe
die gebeure
eventueel plaasgevind het, synde dat hulle beplan het om ʼn vuurwapen
by ʼn polisiebeampte by die hof af te neem”
.
[17]
As indicted earlier in this judgment, the applicant elected not to
testify in
support of his own defence.  I consequently found as
follows in my judgment:
”
Aangesien
beskuldigde 2 verkies het om nie getuienis ter weerlegging van die
prima facie
staatsaak teen hom as deel van die groep gevangenis aan te bied nie,
het dit tot gevolg dat die Staat se weergawe ook ten opsigte
van hom
en teen hom aanvaar word.  Op sodanige aanvaarde weergawe van
die Staat is dit na my mening bo redelike twyfel bewys
dat die
beskuldigdes beplan het om te ontsnap en deurentyd in die uitvoering
daarvan met gemeenskaplike opset opgetree het tot en
met hulle
arrestasie.”
[18]
In my view the applicant does not have reasonable prospects of
success on appeal
and his application for leave to appeal against his
convictions, can consequently not be granted.
Sentences:
[19]
The grounds for the application for leave to appeal against the
sentences imposed,
are set out in the applicant`s affidavit to be the
following:
“
5.1
In finding that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances
present to deviate from the respective prescribed sentences.
5.2
That the effective sentence of life imprisonment is shockingly
harsh
and disproportionate.
5.3
That by imposing an effective sentence of life imprisonment,
I am not
afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate.”
[20]
In the amended indictment it was indicated that counts 3 and 8 were
to be read
with the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
It was furthermore indicated that counts 2 and 5 were to be read with
the
provisions of section 51(2) of the said.
[21]
With regard to the personal circumstances of the applicant, I
recorded as follows
in my judgment on sentence:
“
Beskuldigde
2 is op 13 Maart 1979 gebore en is tans 33 jaar oud.  Hy is
getroud en het twee kinders van 7 en 4 jaar onderskeidelik,
wie by sy
vrou woonagtig is.  Beide sy ouers leef nog en is woonagtig te
Qwa Qwa.  Hy het ook twee getroude susters.
Hy het matriek
geslaag en hom daarna as skrynwerker bekwaam.  Beskuldigde 2 is
ook sedert Augustus 2011 ʼn gevonnisde prisonier
en derhalwe was hy
ook korter as 3 maande verhoor-afwagtend op die onderhawige saak.”
[22]
With regard to the previous convictions of accused 2, I found as
follows:
“
Wat
beskuldigde 2 se vorige veroordelings betref blyk dit dat hy
aanvanklik homself van misdaad weerhou het totdat hy in 2009 ook
uiters ernstige misdrywe gepleeg het wat insgelyks baie relevant is
ten opsigte van die oorweging van ʼn gepaste vonnis in die huidige
geval.  Wat insiggewend is, is dat dit blyk dat hy toe al saam
met beskuldigde 1 as misdadiger opgetree het deurdat dit uit
die
MAS-nommer blyk dat dit dieselfde voorvalle is as waarvoor
beskuldigde 1 skuldig bevind en gevonnis is.
...
Die SAP 69 [vermeld] dat hy, onder andere, skuldig gevind is aan
roof, maar het Me Kruger nou aangedui dat beskuldigde 2 erken
dat dit
inderdaad roof met verswarende omstandighede was.  Beskuldigde 2
is gevolglik ook gedurende Augustus 2011 ten opsigte
van misdrywe
gepleeg in 2009, skuldig bevind op een aanklag van roof met
verswarende omstandighede, drie aanklagte van poging tot
moord en
twee aanklagte ten opsigte van die onwettige besit van ammunisie,
waarvoor hy effektiewelik tot 25 jaar gevangenisstraf
gevonnis [is].
Me
Kruger het egter teenoor my aangedui dat die aangeleentheid op appèl
gedien het en het sy ook die appèl uitspraak beskikbaar
gehad in die
hof, waaruit dit dan blyk dat die skuldigbevindings ten opsigte van
die ammunisie, synde aanklagte 5 en 6, tersyde gestel
is en is die
effektiewe vonnis derhalwe verminder tot 20 jaar gevangenisstraf.”
[23]
In my judgment on sentence I also dealt in detail with the nature and
seriousness
of the respective convictions, especially considered
against the background of the applicable circumstances during the
commission
thereof.  I also dealt with the interest of the
community in my consideration of an appropriate sentence.
[24]
In so far as the applicant relies on the element of rehabilitation, I
explained
in my judgment why the elements of retribution, deterrence
and prevention come to the forth in circumstances such as which
prevailed
in the present matter:
“
Die
vergeldingselement van straf tree ook in hierdie omstandighede
sterker na die voorgrond.  Die beskuldigdes is duidelik
gevaarlike
misdadigers met geen respek vir ʼn ander se lewe nie en
moet die gemeenskap teen hulle beskerm word.  Dit is ook
essensieel
om in so ʼn geval soos die onderhawige, ʼn duidelike
boodskap van afkeur en afskrikking aan ander voornemende sodanige
oortreders
uit te stuur, anders sal ek my plig as regterlike beampte
van hierdie hof versaak.”
[25]
I duly and in detail dealt in my judgment on sentence with all the
relevant mitigating
and aggravating factors and found that the
aggravating factors completely overshadowed the circumstances to such
an extent that there
were almost no mitigating factors present.
[26]
I also dealt with the fact that the applicant was a second offender
with regard
to counts 2 and 5, the robbery with aggravating
circumstances counts, and that the prescribed minimum sentence was
consequently 20
years imprisonment on each count, as opposed to 15
years imprisonment for a first offender.     As
previously indicated,
the applicant was also a second offender with
regard to count 7, attempted murder.
[27]
In the circumstances I am of the view that my findings that there
were no substantial
and compelling circumstances which justified the
imposition of a lesser sentence than the relevant prescribed minimum
sentences and
that no injustice would be done should the prescribed
minimum sentences be imposed, were duly substantiated.
[28]
In my view there are no reasonable prospects that a different court
may (or would)
come to a different conclusion with regard to the
appropriateness of the imposed sentences.
[29]
The application for leave to appeal against the imposed sentences can
consequently
also not succeed.
Order:
1.
Condonation is granted to the applicant for the
late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
2.
The applicant`s application for leave to appeal
against the convictions on 16 January 2013 and sentences imposed on
18 January 2013,
is dismissed.
C.
VAN ZYL, J
On behalf of the
applicant:    Ms S Kruger
Instructed by
:
Legal Aid South
Africa
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the
respondent:   Adv. M Strauss
Instructed by:
Director of Public
Prosecutions
BLOEMFONTEIN