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
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAFSHC 76
|
|
Bacela v S [2010] ZAFSHC 76 (27 May 2010)
IN
THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORAN
GE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case
No. :
A69/2008
In
matter
between:-
THEKISO
PETER BACELA
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
HEARD
ON
:
17
MAY 2010
JUDGMENT
BY
:
CILLIỂ,
J ET EBRAHIM, J ET MOLOI, J
__
___________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON
:
27
MAY 2010
JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________
MOLOI, J
[1]
This
is an appeal against the sentence of 25 years imprisonment imposed by
the trial court for the murder of one Ezariel Mpasi.
The trial court
had granted leave to appeal only against the sentence.
[2]
The
deceased was living with one Elizabeth Moloi in Virginia. The
appellant was having an illicit love relationship with the said
Elizabeth Moloi. The deceased was shot and killed in his house in
Virginia by the appellant. The reason for this killing was to
get
monies that were due to the deceased in order to acquire a vehicle to
be used for taxi operations. The body of the deceased
was thereafter
disposed of by the appellant by dumping it in a veld.
[3] The
trial
court, in considering an appropriate sentence, found the existence of
substantial and compelling circumstances allowing it
to deviate from
the imposition of the prescribed minimum sentence of life
imprisonment as provided for in section 52 of Act 105
of 1997. The
trial court considered the seriousness of the offence, the interests
of the community and the personal circumstances
of the appellant as
well as the objectives of sentencing. On appeal it was argued that
the trial court did not balance the triad
of sentencing factors in
that it over-emphasised the nature and seriousness of the offence and
the interests of the community while
under-emphasising the personal
circumstances of the appellant resulting in the imposition of a
sentence that was shockingly inappropriate.
The personal
circumstances of the appellant that were not given sufficient
consideration, it was argued, were that he was 53 years
old, had
passed standard 2 at school, he was married and had a 15 year old
daughter, he had no income at the time as he had lost
his taxi
vehicle in an accident and was therefore in financial difficulties.
[4] It
is trite that a court of appeal can interfere with the sentencing
discretion of a trial court only in limited circumstances
e.g. where
the trial court misdirected itself or exercised its discretion
improperly.
S
v Jiminez
2003 (1) SACR 507
(SCA) at 517g-h or where the sentence imposed is
shockingly excessive.
[5] Considering
how the unsuspecting deceased was killed, the endeavours made to
dispose of his corpse and the motivation of gain
for his killing, in
my view, one cannot find fault with the sentence imposed. In fact the
trial court bent over backwards to impose
what seems a lenient
sentence on the appellant. In consequence whereof I am of the view
that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
The appeal is therefore
dismissed and the sentence imposed is confirmed.
_____________
MOLOI,
J
I
concur.
_____________
EBRAHIM, J
I
concur
.
_____________
CILLIỂ, J
TO
: S
Kruger
Attorneys
for the Appe
llant
Bloemfontein Regsentrum
2de Vloer, St Andrews
Sentrum
St Andrews Straat 113
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ref:
S Kruger/pl/x147696508
AND
TO:
The
Director of Public Prosecution
3
rd
Floor, Waterval Centre
Aliwal Street
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ref:
9/2/5/1-139/09