Hendricks v S (A343/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 179 (18 April 2008)

55 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Domestic Violence — Sentencing — Appellant convicted of contravening protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act — Sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count, resulting in an effective six years' imprisonment — Appellant appeals against the severity of the sentence, arguing it is excessive — Court finds the sentences imposed to be disproportionate to the nature of the offences, which involved verbal crimen injuria, and substitutes the sentences with six months' imprisonment for each count.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZAWCHC 179
|

|

Hendricks v S (A343/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 179 (18 April 2008)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE
OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE
NO
:
A343/2007
DATE
:
18
APRIL 2008
In the matter between:
SEVORO
HENDRICKS
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MEER,
J
:
[1]
On
1
March
2007 appellant was convicted in the Wynberg Regional Court for
contravening two protection orders issued in terms of the
Domestic
Violence Act, 116 of 1998
. In contravention of the orders, the
appellant had on 27 April 2006 entered the home of Yvonne Samuels and
sworn at her. He had
again entered her home on 10 May 2006 and sworn
at her daughter. Appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment
on each count,
an effective six years' imprisonment. Appellant
appeals against his sentence, contending in essence that it is
excessive.
[2]
In sentencing appellant, the magistrate drew attention to the fact
that he had been convicted before of a similar offence and
also for
assauft. In the light of his previous convictions and disregard for
the law, a direct period of imprisonment said the
magistrate, was
called for on each count. The circumstances, moreover, did not
warrant that the sentences run concurrently.
[3]
Mr
Maartens
for respondent drew our attention to the fact that the two charges
forming the subject of this appeal in essence comprised a verbal
crimen
injuria
and
conceded that the sentences were severe. I am in agreement with these
submissions. Although
section 178
of Act 116 of 1998 provides for a
maximum of five years' imprisonment, the conduct of appellant apropos
the two counts do not
f
in all the circumstances, warrant the sentences imposed which, in my
view, can be seen as excessive. The sentences, therefore,
fall to be
amended on appeal.
[4]
I would accordingly substitute the sentence with the following
sentences:
Count
1
- six months' imprisonment
Count
2
- six months' imprisonment
MEER.
J
N
C ERASMUS, J
:
I agree. The imposed sentences by the magistrate are set aside and
substituted with the sentences proposed by my colleague.
N
C ERASMUS, J