S v Mphore [2009] ZAFSHC 72 (11 June 2009)

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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAFSHC 72
|

|

S v Mphore [2009] ZAFSHC 72 (11 June 2009)

FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case
No.: 264/2009
In the
matter of:
THE
STATE
and
WILLIAM KWAILA
MPHORE
CORAM:
CIILIé, J et EBRAHIM, J
JUDGEMENT:
EBRAHIM, J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
11 JUNE 2009
_____________________________________________________
[1]
The
two accused were convicted of the crime of assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm and each sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
[2] The
matter was accordingly referred to this court on ordinary review in
terms of
section 302
of The
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
. On
receipt of the papers I addressed the following query to the learned
trial magistrate:
“
1. The learned
Magistrate is requested to furnish reasons for the conviction of
accused num
ber
1.
2. Is the sentence
of 5 years imposed not shockingly
inappropriate,
given the relative youth and clean record of the accused? Would the
minimum sentence of 2 years not have been adequate
and appropriate in
the circumstances in this case?”
[3] The
response of the magistr
ate
as to his reasons for the conviction of the 2 accused was persuasive
and legally correct.
[4] The
same however cannot be said for the reasons furnished for the
sentence imposed. These are the following:
“
Volgens die klaagstaat is die
beskuldigdes onderskeidelik 26 en 21 jaar oud, hoewel beskuldigde 2
met eerste verskyning aangedui
het dat hy 22 jaar oud is. Dit mag
relatief jonk wees, maar beide beskuldigdes is reeds van ‘n
ouderdom waar ‘n sekere mate
van volwasse gedrag en selfbeheersing
van hulle verwag kan word.
Daarteenoor is die klaer ‘n kind, hy
is 16 jaar oud en dit is op rekord geplaas dat hy klein van bou is.
Die klaer het hoegenaamd
niks aan die beskuldigdes gedoen nie. Die
beskuldigdes het geen grond gehad om te dink dat dat die klaer en sy
vriende by ‘n
vroeëre aanval op hulle betrokke was nie. Hulle
beweer ook nie dat die klaer betrokke was op dat hulle dit gedink het
nie.
Die klaer was net aangeval omdat hulle lus gehad het om hulle
woede op iemand uit te haal. Die klaer is op dierlike moorddadige

wyse deur 5 persone aangeval, almal uitgerus met een of ander
gevaarlike wapen wat hulle nie geskroom het om teen die klaer te

gebruik nie. Die klaer het geen verweer teen die aanval gehad nie.
Hy was op die grond en het geen weerstand gebied nie.
Ek is van oordeel
dat die omstandighede rondom die aanval sodanig weersinswekkend is
dat die feit dat die beskuldigdes eerste oortreders
is en in hulle
twintigerjare is, nie genoegsaam opweeg om die vonnisse skokkend
onvanpas te maak nie.”
[5] I
am in respectful disagreement with these reasons as a basis for
imposing a sentence in excess of 2 years imprisonment. In my
judgment, the circumstances under which the present offence was
committed is not rare or exceptional and the injuries sustained by
the complainant were not mortal. One has only to look at case

authority in relation to the crime of assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm and a multitude of instances are revealed
in
which this specific offence is committed under similar circumstances
to the present case. The legal doctrine of common purpose
is also
helpful in this regard. Useful guidelines in sentencing are provided
in these cases and it is only in exceptional cases
where medical
testimony is called which establishes uncontroverted evidence of
serious, life threatening injury to a complainant
who has been
assaulted with for example, as in this case, a golf club, a kierie
and knife and where serious head and other bodily
injuries have been
sustained by the victim, that the perpetrator of such an assault has
been found to be deserving of a sentence
in excess of 2 years
imprisonment.
[6] No
medical evidence was led to establish the precise nature, e
xtent
and seriousness of the injuries sustained by the complainant in this
case. The evidence merely revealed that the complainant
received
stitches and was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
Accordingly no yardstick exists upon which to base a conclusion
that:
“
Die klaer is op
‘n moorddadige wyse aangeval. Die hof is dan verplig om ‘n
minimum vonnis op te lê van minstens 2 jaar
gevangenisstraf
maar
die hof kan tot 8 jaar gevangenisstraf oplê vandag.”
(See sentence record, p.
65).
[7] In
these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned magistrate was
not entitled to impose a sentence in excess of
3
years imprisonment. A sentence of 3 years imprisonment will be
appropriate and just and will give effect to the demands of society

that violence in communities be visited with severe punitive
measures, so as to act as a deterrent to other would be offenders.

Such a sentence, in my judgment, will also satisfy the victim’s
demand for retribution.
[8] In the result the
following order is made:
1. The conviction of
assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm in respect of both
accused is confirmed.
2. The
sentence of 5 years imprisonment imposed on each of the two accused
is hereby set aside and replaced with a sentence of 3
years
imprisonment on each accused.
3. The
sentence of 3 years imprisonment is ante-dated to 8 April 2009.
____________
_
S. EBRAHIM, J
I
concur.
_______________
C.
B. CILLIé
,
J
/em