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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 111
|
|
S v Matume (A154/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 111 (5 March 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Date: 5 March 2015
Case number: A154/15
Not reportable
Not of interest to
other judges
High
Court Reference No: No: 634/14
Case
No: K558/14
MAGISTRATE
OBERHOLZER (held
at KHUTSONG)
THE STATE V TUMI
MATUME
REVIEW JUDGMENT
POTTERILL J
[1] The matter came
before us by means of review in terms of section 30U(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 (“the
Act”).
[2] The accused
pleaded guilty in terms of section 112(1 )(b) of the Act to
housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. The accused
was
sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
[3] Upon perusal of
the record I found it impossible to decide whether the proceedings
were in accordance with justice due to all
the “indistincts”
in the record.
[4]
Upon receipt of the “reconstructed” record I was of the
opinion that the sentence was not in accordance with justice.
I
requested the National Director of Public Prosecutions’ view.
[5]
The Director of Public Prosecutions agreed that the court
a
quo
misdirected
itself in imposing a shockingly inappropriate sentence in
over-emphasising the prevalence of the offence and the interests
of
society. The court
a
quo
ignored
the following mitigating factors:
5.1 The accused is
young (19 years old);
5.2 The accused
pleaded guilty to the offence;
5.3 The accused is
still attending school;
5.4
The
accused is attending a special school;
5.5 The accused is a
first offender;
5.6 The accused has
had an operation which still needs treatment.
[6]
Upon investigation the Director of Public Prosecutions ascertained
that the accused was released on parole on 19 December 2014.
This
fact however, does not negate the court
a
quo’s
imposition
of an inappropriate sentence rendering the proceedings not to be in
accordance with justice.
[
7
]
The sentence is set aside and replaced with the following:
“
Twelve
(12) months imprisonment”.
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I agree
N. KOLLAPEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT