About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 160
|
|
Barker v S (CC155/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 160 (15 March 2021)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, HELD AT PRETORIA
CASE
NO
: CC155/2018
DATE
:
2020-10-15
REPORTABLE:NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
REVISED
DATE
15/3/2021
In
the matter between
CHARLES
PETER BARKER
Applicant
and
STATE
Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
BROODRYK,
AJ
: Very well, I will now give judgment in this
application for leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Charles
Peter Barker,
was convicted of murder read with the provisions of
Section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997 as well as a count of attempted
murder. In
respect of the murder he was sentenced to life
imprisonment and for the attempted murder to eighteen (18) years
imprisonment. In
the application for leave Mr Moeng raised the
question of the complainant being a single witness and how such
evidence should be
treated. He further argued that another court,
given the same set of facts, may come to a different conclusion. Then
the question
of whether it was proven that the murder was
premeditated, or not, was raised. The argument is that the Court
should not have found
that the murder was premeditated.
The question of the knife was
highlighted, and as to sentence, Mr Moeng stated that as to the
finding of the trial Court, that there
were no substantial and
compelling circumstances, that he is hamstrung to argue that, as
there was a concession.
However, he criticised the fixing of
the non-parole period, and the argument is that the sentence should
be individualised, and
that the fixing of the non-parole period, in
that the Court went too far. Mr Jacobs, who is now appearing
for the state opposed
the application, both on conviction and
sentence. He stated that in a well-motivated judgment the question of
the single witness
was carefully dealt with by the court.
He stated that the version of the
accused was laughable, reading the record, and in fact there is only
one version before the Court.
As to the sentence, he submitted
that accused had ample time to disassociate himself from the original
stab wound, and he highlighted
the fact that the accused said he is
going to kill the deceased. As to the question of the fixed
non-parole period, he pointed
out that the accused probably could
regard himself as lucky, that he was not declared a dangerous
criminal, and would then only
have appeared before Court after expiry
of 30 years.
I have considered all the submissions
by Mr Moeng. All of these submissions, all of these aspects
were at length dealt with
in my judgment, there is nothing new. I
am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect that another
Court might come
to a different conclusion, the application for leave
to appeal, I did not canvas that, but I take it, that it is to the
Supreme
Court of Appeal.
Let me rephrase that, the
APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BOTH ON CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE, IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.
BROODRYK,
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
For
the Applicant : Mr Moeng, instructed by the Legal
Aid
Board, Pretoria
For
the Respondent : Adv K Jacobs, instructed by the Director
of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng
Division,
Pretoria