About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAECMHC 45
|
|
S v Njova and Others (43/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 45 (23 August 2019)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[EASTERN
CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA]
Case No. 43/2016
In
the matter between:
IN
THE STATE
And
THEMBILE
NJOVA
ACCUSED
NO. 1
SIBONELO
MBIZENI ACCUSED
NO. 2
MFUNDISO
MBIZENI ACCUSED
NO.3
MSAWENKOSI
STEVE MADIKIZELA ACCUSED
NO. 4
LINDANI
CANDLOVU ACCUSED
NO. 5
SENTENCE
JOLWANA
J
Introduction
[1]
On 7 June 2019 the accused were convicted of a wide range of serious
criminal offences committed between January 2015 and May
2015.
These offences were housebreakings, robberies with aggravating
circumstances, attempted robbery, attempted murder,
murders,
possession of firearms and possession of ammunition. The main
targets of these criminal offences were rural shops
owned or run by
foreign nationals who ran such business in different localities in
Bizana.
[2]
This court must now consider and mete out an appropriate sentence for
each of the accused. The fact that these offences
are of an
extremely serious nature, committed with extreme violence using
lethal weapons makes the task even more onerous.
The terror,
and the loss of loved ones, the widowing unnecessarily imposed on
spouses and the irreplaceable loss of a father are
all unimaginable.
The affected families and communities all demand and deserve justice
which must be reflected in the punishment
that is imposed on the
accused.
The
general approach to sentencing
[3]
The Constitutional Court has had occasion to consider the correct
approach to sentencing in the constitutional dispensation
which
should as it must, find a proper and appropriate balance in light of
the obviously conflicting interests and seek to achieve
a
reconciliation of the often times irreconcilable interests of the
accused against those of the community and most importantly
the
bereaved.
[4]
In
S v M
(Centre
for child law as amicus curiae)
[1]
Sachs J restated and reaffirmed the principles of our law on
sentencing when he made the following salutary remarks which will
guide this court in passing an appropriate sentence:
“
[10] Sentencing is
innately controversial. However, all the parties to this matter
agreed that the classic Zinn triad is the
paradigm from which to
proceed when embarking on the lonely and onerous task of passing
sentence. According to the triad
the nature of the crime, the
personal circumstances of the criminal and the interest of the
community are the relevant factors
determinative of an appropriate
sentence. In
S v Banda
1991 (2) SA 352
(B) at 355A
Friedman J explained that:
‘
The elements of
the triad contain an equilibrium and a tension. A court should,
when determining sentence, strive to accomplish
and arrive at a
judicious counter-balance between these elements in order to assure
that one element is not unduly accentuated
at the expense of and to
the exclusion of the others. This is not merely a formula nor a
judicial incantation, the mere stating
whereof satisfies the
requirements. What is necessary is that the court shall
consider, and try to balance evenly, the nature
and circumstances of
the offence the characteristics of the offender and his circumstances
and the impact of the crime on the community,
its welfare and
concern.’
And, as Mthiyane JA
pointed out
in Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu Natal v P
2006 (1) SACR 243
(SCA) at para 13, in the assessment of an
appropriate sentence the court is also required to have regard to the
main purposes of
punishment, namely, its deterrent, preventative,
reformative and retributive aspects. To this the quality of
mercy, as distinct
from mere sympathy for the offender, had to be
added. Finally, he observed, it was necessary to take account
of the fact
that the traditional aims of punishment had been
transformed by the Constitution.”
[5]
These sentencing principles remain a lighthouse which helps in
navigating through often stormy and imprecise waters which a
sentencing court goes through as it seeks to find an appropriate
sentence that fits the accused in light of his specific
circumstances,
the circumstances in which the crime was committed
with due regard to the interests of the society. A very
important and
indispensable tool is the nebulous discretion left only
to the sentencing court, the improper exercise of which could easily
result
in an unjust sentence that serves neither the accused nor the
society.
The
crimes and interests of society
[6]
The accused organised themselves into a heavily armed small army.
The assortment of weapons with which they armed themselves
included
rifles, pump action machine gun and pistols. These were
obviously intended to overcome any resistance and use those
weapons
and even kill the victims of the armed robberies. The members
of the communities who came to the crime scenes to
stop the criminals
from their criminal enterprise were themselves attacked. The
police officers who responded to the victims’
cries for help
were also attacked. In all the robberies in this case firearms
were used and in some cases with fatal consequences
for innocent
people resulting in wives being widowed, children being rendered
fatherless, families losing their loved ones as well
as communities
and the country losing valuable and law abiding citizens in senseless
criminality.
[7]
The first person to be killed was Zolani Benjamin Madikizela who was
killed on the 18 February 2015. He died of multiple
gunshot
wounds. The second person to be killed less than a week later
was Pervaiz Ahmed who died of gunshot wounds at his
place of work on
22 February 2015. Less than three weeks after Mr Madikizela’s
killing Mr Mzomhle Sojeleza Mazimbeni
was killed on 6 March 2015.
He also died of multiple gunshot wounds. Less than two weeks
after Mr Mazimbeni’s
killing Mr Zolile Skotoyi was killed on 18
March 2015. Mr Skotoyi also died of gunshot wounds and his
firearm was taken from
him.
[8]
These murders are a grim testimony to the fact that the accused and
those who were with them were not heavily armed as a scaremongering
tactic but were prepared to use those weapons. As they
committed these robberies the accused were prepared to kill and did
kill, not once but four times in different incidents in a period of
about one month from February 2015 to March 2015. Other
than
these robberies in which the deceased were killed other robberies
were also committed with extreme violence as well.
The victims
were lucky not to be killed in those instances.
[9]
In respect of the murder and robbery convictions the prescribed
minimum sentences in terms of
section 51(1)
and (2) of the
Criminal
Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
are life imprisonment and 15 years
imprisonment respectively. This Act also gives the court a
discretion to depart from the
prescribed minimum sentence where the
court finds substantial and compelling circumstances to exist which
justify a departure from
the prescribed sentences.
[10]
The approach to
section 51
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of
1997
has been authoritatively stated in
S
v Malgas
[2]
as follows:
“
A.
Section 51
has
limited but not eliminated the court’s discretion in imposing
sentence in respect of offences referred to in
Part 1
of Schedule 2
(or imprisonment for other specified periods for offences listed in
other parts of Schedule 2).
B. Courts are required to
approach the imposition of sentence conscious that the Legislature
has ordained life imprisonment (or
the particular prescribed period
of imprisonment) as the sentence that should ordinarily and in the
absence of weighty justification
be imposed for the listed crimes in
the specified circumstances.
C. Unless there are and
can be seen to be, truly convincing reasons for a different response,
the crimes in question are therefore
to elicit a severe, standardized
and consistent response from the courts.
D. The specified
sentences are not to be departed from lightly or for flimsy reasons.
Speculative hypothesis favourable to
the offender, undue sympathy,
aversion to imprisoning first offenders, personal doubts as to the
efficacy of the policy underlying
the legislation, and marginal
differences in personal circumstances or degrees of participation
between co-offenders are to be
excluded.
E. The Legislature has
however deliberately left it to the courts to decide whether the
circumstances of any particular case call
for a departure from the
prescribed sentence. While the emphasis has shifted to the
objective gravity of the type of crime
and the need for effective
sanctions against it, this does not mean that all other
considerations are to be ignored.
F. All factors (other
than those in D above) traditionally taken to into account in
sentencing (whether or not they diminish moral
guilt) thus continue
to play a role, none is excluded at the outset from consideration in
the sentencing process.
G. The ultimate impact of
all the circumstances relevant to sentencing must be measured against
the composite yard stick (‘substantial
and compelling’)
and must be such as cumulatively justify a departure from the
standardized response that the Legislature
had ordained.
H. In applying the
statutory provisions it is in appropriately constricting to use the
concepts developed in dealing with appeals
against sentence as the
sole criterion.
I. If the sentencing
court on consideration of the circumstances of the particular case is
satisfied that they render the prescribed
sentence unjust in that it
would be disproportionate to the crimes, the criminal and the needs
of society, so that an unjustice
would be done by imposing that
sentence, it is entitled to impose a lesser sentence.
J. In doing so, account
must be taken of the fact that crime of that particular kind has been
singled out for severe punishment
and that the sentence to be imposed
in lieu of the prescribed sentence should be assessed paying due
regard to the benchmark which
the Legislature has provided.”
Personal
circumstances of the accused.
Accused
no.1
[11]
Accused no.1 was born on 02 February 1982 and is therefore 37 years
old. He is married and has been married since 2007.
He
and his wife are blessed with two children, Avela a twelve year old
boy and Lusimanye also a boy who is four years old.
He also has
four other children born out of wedlock being two girls and two
boys. The youngest of these children is 9 years
old and the
oldest is 15 years old. Therefore, all his children are still
minors and some are still very young and all are
still schooling.
Before his arrest he was providing for his children and his wife as
she was not working. He only has
a standard four education as
he had to leave school to seek employment so as to assist in
maintaining his family. He has
a driver’s licence and a
TLB licence.
[12]
His wife has since left their common home for her maiden home due to
hardships. Their homestead valued at about R30 000.00
is
left unattended and therefore exposed to being vandalized. His
mother is 85 years old and the accused assisted in taking
care of her
before his arrest. Accused no.1 has been incarcerated, since
his arrest four years ago at Bongweni Maximum Security
Prison in
Kokstad. He has ailments such as flu and there is also a
possibility of suffering from arthritis.
[13]
He was arrested for these offences for which he has been convicted on
27 July 2015. He has therefore been in custody
for just over
four years now. He has no previous convictions and is therefore
a first offender. In addition to taking
into account these
personal circumstances, Mr Linyana, his legal representative who made
all these submissions urged me to find
the following to be
substantial and compelling circumstances: His age which is 37 years
now, the fact that he has no previous convictions
and is therefore a
first offender. He is a family man with children to look
after. The fact that he has been in prison
since his arrest
over four years ago as an awaiting trial prisoner.
Accused
no.2
[14]
Mr Sodo, the legal representative for accused no.2 submitted that
accused no.2 was born on 27 July 1990. He is not married
but
has one child, a girl born on 01 January 2014. He was arrested
on 28 July 2015 at the age of 24 years. He has since
spent over
four years in prison as an awaiting trial prisoner. He worked
in the construction industry before his arrest and
earned R600.00 per
week. He only went to school up to standard 3 as his
circumstances would not allow him to proceed further
with his
education. Before his arrest he supported his child. It
was further submitted that he is a first offender,
his youthfulness
and the rather lengthy pre-sentence incarceration are substantial and
compelling circumstances to justify a departure
from the prescribed
minimum sentences.
Accused
no. 3
[15]
Accused no.3 was born on 15 April 1986. He is married with two
children who are aged 12 and 15 years old. He passed
standard 4
and was doing standard 5 when he was arrested. At the time of
his arrest he worked for a construction company
in Stanger. He
is a qualified bricklayer. He also helped to support his
younger sister. He was arrested over
four years ago and is a
first offender.
Accused
no.4
[16]
Accused no.4 is 46 years old having been born on 20 January 1973.
He is married with six children. Four of those
children were
born of his marriage with his wife and two of them were born out of
wedlock. The youngest of these children
was born in 2009.
All of them are still at school save for the one born in 1996.
His wife is unemployed. At the
time of his arrest he worked as
a security guard at Ntabezulu Senior Secondary School and earned
R1200.00 per month. He suffers
from arthritis which was
diagnosed in 1988. In prison he does not always get his
medication as the prison sometimes runs
out of stock. He was
born out of wedlock and was raised by a single parent. He had
to leave school in standard 8 due
to financial difficulties. He
maintained his children before his arrest. His mother passed on
in May 2017 when he was
already in prison. He has been in
prison for over four years and three months now since his arrest on
20 May 2015. He
is a first offender as he has no previous
convictions.
Accused
no.5
[17]
Accused no.5 was born on 6 June 1989 and is therefore 30 years old
now. He left school in standard 1 due to financial
difficulties. He worked as a shepherd before his arrest looking
after livestock. His mother passed away when he was
three years
old and was also very young when his father passed away. He was
raised by his aunt and is the youngest of three
children.
Before his arrest he also worked in the construction industry where
he earned R1200.00 per month. He suffers
from asthma which he
treated with traditional medicine before his arrest on 18 May 2015.
He has been in prison awaiting trial
for four years and three months
now. He has no previous convictions and is therefore a first
offender.
[18]
The above circumstances of all the accused are in my view, neither
substantial nor compelling even if considered cumulatively
as I was
urged to do. The heinousness of these crimes and the brazenness
with which they were committed repeatedly with heavy
weapons against
small businesses and at the homesteads of the victims all militate
against the accuseds’ circumstances.
In
S
v Vilakazi
[3]
the Supreme Court expressed the following sentiments which are, in my
view, relevant to this case:
“
[58] … In
cases of serious crime the personal circumstances of the offender, by
themselves will necessarily recede into the
background. Once it
becomes clear that the crime is deserving of a substantial period of
imprisonment the questions whether
the accused is married or single,
whether he has two children or three, whether or not he is in
employment, are in themselves largely
immaterial to what that period
should be…But they are nonetheless relevant in another
respect. A material consideration
is whether the accused can be
expected to offend again. While that can never be confidently
predicted his or her circumstances
might assist in making at least
some assessment…”
[19]
In this case the nature of the crimes committed and the fact that
they were motivated by greed and naked criminality make the
fact that
all the accused are first offenders similarly recede into the back
ground. They behaved and committed all these
offences in a
manner that is no different from that of hardened criminals who have
no respect for human life. Their lack
of remorse is a matter
that counts, as it should, quite heavily against them.
[20]
I therefore find that in respect of the robbery charges there are no
substantial and compelling circumstances that justify
the imposition
of a lesser sentence than the one prescribed in terms of
section
51(2)
read with
Part 1
of Schedule 2 of the
Criminal Law Amendment
Act. Having
said that, the imposition of a prescribed minimum
sentence does not mean that the rather lengthy pre-sentence period of
imprisonment
should not be factored in. The accused have all
spent a period of just over four years in pre-sentence incarceration
as awaiting
trial prisoners. In
S
v Dlamini
[4]
the court stated the relevant legal position as follows:
“
[41] This brings
me to the 10 months Mr Dlamini spent in custody before he was
sentenced, which, as I have mentioned, neither the
magistrate nor the
high court took into account in deciding the appropriate sentence.
It is trite that the period an accused
is held in custody while
awaiting completion of his trial should be taken into account when
deciding on the appropriate sentence.
This is done by making
the period of imprisonment actually imposed shorter than it would
otherwise have been. However, courts
have not spoken clearly on
how to calculate this period. One approach has been to do an
exact substraction; another is to
deduct the period actually spent;
yet another is to treat the time spent in custody, at the very least,
as equivalent to the time
spent served without remission; and a
fourth, more adventurous method is to treat the period as equivalent
to about twice the length,
because of the harsher conditions that
awaiting-trial prisoners are subjected to in comparison with the
conditions of sentenced
prisoners.”
[21]
It is clear from the above that there is no exact formula to account
for the pre-sentence period spent in prison. It
should, in my
view, like most sentencing decisions, be left to the discretion of
the trial court. To try to impose a formula that
seeks to account for
years, months, weeks, days and hours would be too prescriptive and
imprecise. The issue must be left
at the principle that the
pre-sentence period of imprisonment must be factored in in imposing a
just sentence including a sentence
in which there is a prescribed
minimum sentence period which is not life imprisonment.
[22]
However, the murder charges stand on a different footing. There
is something peculiar and in my view, weighty about these
murder
charges. The evidence is that when these murders were committed
it was Sibongo and Ngonini who killed the deceased.
According
to Ngonini’s evidence which has not been challenged, Sibongo
was never charged and has since died. While
the evidence is
that accused no.2, 3 and 4 were at the crime scenes armed with
firearms and actually participated in the robberies,
there is no
evidence that they killed any of the deceased. They had the
opportunity and the weapons with which to either
participate in
murdering the deceased or murder the other victims of the robberies
which could have resulted in more people being
killed.
[23]
These, considered with the fact that all the accused are first
offenders is a weighty justification to depart from the prescribed
minimum sentence of life imprisonment. There is nothing to
suggest that they could be incorrigible or that they should be
deemed
incapable of reformation or rehabilitation.
[24]
In fact but for Sibongo and Ngonini it is difficult to exclude the
possibility that these armed robberies could have been committed
without any lives being lost. This does not take away from the
fact that the accused were less concerned about the lives
being lost
and were happy with the robberies being committed and participating
in them while people were being killed who, to them
seemed like
collateral damage. The rewards for the robberies were too
tempting for the lives being lost to really matter.
Therefore,
while heavy sentences are justified for these murders, the imposition
of the minimum sentences prescribed would be inappropriate
in the
circumstances. Therefore, a departure from the prescribed
period of life imprisonment is justified.
[25]
One other consideration is that a sentencing court has to consider
and decide on how to prevent the cumulative effect of sentences
in
situations where the accused committed multiple offences. In
S
v Velebhayi
[5]
Plasket J had this to say:
“
Once
the appropriate sentences have been imposed in relation to each
offence of which an accused has been convicted, it is necessary
for
the trial court to consider the cumulative effect of the sentences
and, if necessary, to ameliorate the harshness of the aggregate
sentence. In such a case the sentences on several counts may be
arbitrarily reduced to adduce a reasonable result when taken
together”
[26]
The multiplicity of these offences will have a cumulative effect on
sentences imposed. If the cumulative effect is not
ameliorated
the sentences themselves may be dissonant with the crimes, the
offenders and the interests of society. This may
unwittingly
result in the retributive purpose of sentencing being over-emphasized
and other purposes being watered down.
That may itself not be
in the interests of justice.
[27]
In the result the following sentences are, in my view, appropriate in
this matter:
1.
Accused no.1
1.1 For counts 2, 3, 6,
9, 12 and 14 - armed robberies, you are sentenced to 11 years
imprisonment for each count.
1.2 For counts 4, 5, 11
and 16 – housebreakings, you are sentenced to 3 years
imprisonment for each count.
1.3 For counts 1, 7, 8
and 17 – the murder charges, you sentenced to 20 years
imprisonment in respect of each count
1.4 For count 13 -
attempted murder, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
1.5 For count 10 -
attempted robbery, you are sentences to 5 years imprisonment.
1.6 For counts 18 and 19
- possession of firearms and ammunition, you are sentenced to 5 years
imprisonment for each count.
1.1.1 The sentences in
respect of counts 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
1.1.2 The sentences in
respect of counts 4, 5, 11, 16 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in count 2.
1.1.3 The sentences in
respect of counts 7, 8 and 17 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 1.
1.1.4 The sentence in
respect of count 2 is to run consecutively with the sentence in
respect of count 1.
1.1.5 The sentences in
respect of counts 10, 13, 18 and 19 are suspended for 5 years on
condition that the accused is not convicted
of the offences of
possession of firearms, possession of ammunition, attempted robbery,
robbery, attempted murder, housebreaking
or murder committed during
the period of suspension.
1.7 Accused no.1 shall
therefore serve an effective term of imprisonment of 31 years.
2.
Accused no.2
2.1 For counts 2, 3, 6,
9, 12 and 14 - armed robberies, you are sentenced to 11 years
imprisonment for each count.
2.2 For counts 4, 5, 11
and 16 - housebreaking, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for
each count.
2.3 For counts 1, 7, 8
and 17 - murder charges, you are sentenced to 20 years imprisonment
in respect of each count.
2.4 For counts 13 -
attempted murder you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
2.5 For count 10 -
attempted robbery, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
2.6 For counts 18 and 19
- possession of firearms and possession of ammunition you are
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for each
count
2.1.1 The sentences in
respect of counts 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
2.1.2 The sentences
in respect of counts 4, 5, 11 and 16 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
2.1.3 The sentences in
respect of counts 7, 8 and 17 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 1.
2.1.4 The sentence in
respect of counts 10, 13, 18 and 19 are suspended for five years on
condition that the accused is not convicted
of the offences of
housebreaking possession of fire arms, possession of ammunition,
attempted robbery, robbery, attempted murder,
murder committed during
the period of suspension.
2.1.5 The sentence in
respect of count 2 is to run consecutively with the sentence in
respect of count 1.
2.7 Accused no.2 shall
therefore serve an effective term of imprisonment of 31years.
3.
Accused no.3
3.1 For counts 2, 3, 6, 9
and 12 - armed robberies, you are sentenced to 11 years imprisonment
for each count.
3.2 For counts 4, 5 and
11 - housebreaking, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for
each count.
3.3 For counts 1, 7 and 8
- murder charges, you are sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for each
count.
3.4 For count 13 -
attempted murder, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
3.5 For count 10 -
attempted robbery, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
3.6 For counts 18 and 19
– possession of firearms and possession of ammunition you are
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for
each count.
3.1.1 The sentences in
respect of counts 3, 6, 9 and 12 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
3.1.2 The sentence in
respect of counts 4, 5 and 11 are to run concurrently with the
sentences in respect of count 2.
3.1.3 The sentences in
respect of counts 7 and 8 are to run concurrently with the sentence
in respect of count 1.
3.1.4 The sentence in
respect of counts 10, 13, 18 and 19 are suspended for five years on
condition that the accused is not convicted
of the offences of
housebreaking, possession of firearms, possession of ammunition,
attempted robbery, robbery, attempted murder,
murder committed during
the period of suspension.
3.1.5 The sentence in
respect of count 2 is to run consecutively with the sentence in
respect of count 1.
3.7 Accused no.3 shall
therefore serve an effective term of imprisonment of 31 years.
4.
Accused no.4
4.1 For counts 2, 3, 6,
9, 12 and 14 – armed robberies, you are sentenced to 11 years
imprisonment for each count.
4.2 For counts 4, 5, 11
and 16 – housebreaking, you are sentenced to 3 years
imprisonment for each count.
4.3 For counts 1, 7, 8
and 17 – murder charges, you are sentenced to 20 years
imprisonment in respect of each count.
4.4 For counts 13 –
attempted murder, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
4.5 For count 10 –
attempted robbery, you are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
4.6 For counts 18 and 19
– possession of firearms and possession of ammunition, you are
sentenced 5 years imprisonment for
each count.
4.1.1 The sentences in
respect of counts 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
4..1.2 The sentences in
respect of counts 4, 5, 11 and 16 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 2.
4.1.3 The sentence in
respect of counts 7, 8 and 17 are to run concurrently with the
sentence in respect of count 1.
4.1.4 The sentence in
respect of counts 10, 13, 18 and 19 are suspended for five years on
condition that the accused is not convicted
of the offences of
housebreaking, possession of firearms, possession of ammunition,
attempted robbery, robbery, attempted murder
or murder committed
during the period of suspension.
4.1.5 The sentence in
respect of count 2 is to run consecutively with the sentence in
respect of count 1.
4.7 Accused no.4 shall
therefore serve an effective term of imprisonment of 31 years.
5.
Accused no.5
5.1 For count 14 –
armed robbery, you are sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
5.2 For counts 18 and 19
– possession of firearms and possession of ammunition, you are
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment
in respect of each count.
5.3 The sentences in
respect of counts 18 and 19 are suspended on condition that the
accused is not convicted of armed robbery,
attempted robbery,
possession of firearms or possession of ammunition committed during
the period of suspension.
5.4 Accused no.5 shall
therefore serve an effective term of imprisonment of 11 years.
__________________________
M.S.
JOLWANA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
Counsel
for the State: S. NOLUTSHUNGU
Instructed
by: NPA
MTHATHA
Counsel
for accused NO.1: B. LINYANA
Instructed
by: LINYANA & SOMACALA INC
FLAGSTAFF
Counsel
for Accused No.2 and 3: R.M. SODO
Instructed
by: LEGAL AID BOARD
MTHATHA
Counsel
for Accused no.4 and 5: A. NOHIYA
Instructed
by: LEGAL AID BOARD
MTHATHA
Heard
on: 19 August 2019
Delivered
on: 23 August 2019
[1]
S v M (Centre for Child Law as amicus curiae) 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC)
[2]
S v Malgas
2001 (1) SACR 469
at 470 - 471
[3]
S v Vilakazi 2009(1) SACR 552 (SCA) at 574
[4]
S v
Dlamini
2012 (2) SACR 1 (SCA)
[5]
S v
Velebhayi
2015 (1) SACR 7
(ECG) at para 32