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
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZAFSHC 75
|
|
S v Mokoena (33/2006) [2007] ZAFSHC 75 (1 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: 33/2006
In the review between:
THE STATE
and
PIETER MOKOENA
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
WRIGHT, J
et
EBRAHIM,
J
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
:
EBRAHIM, J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON
:
1 FEBRUARY 2007
_____________________________________________________
[1] The accused, a 55
year old male, and inmate of Groenpunt Prison, was convicted of
contravening section 4(b) of the Drug Trafficking
Act 1992 (Act
140/92) â the possession of 690 grams of Dagga. He pleaded guilty
to the charge and was convicted on his plea and
sentenced to pay a
fine of R3 000,00 or undergo 6 months imprisonment.
[2] The matter was placed
by way of ordinary review before me in Chambers and, being of the
view that the sentence was excessive,
I requested reasons from the
learned Magistrate. These were furnished and, essentially, it
appears that the learned Magistrate
overemphasized the aggravating
features of the case viz the seriousness of the offence and its
prevalence in the community or without
giving sufficient weight to
the personal circumstances of the accused and factors counting in his
favour viz that he is not a young
man, being age 55 years, that he
earns a paltry R60,00 a month as a prison monitor and has a wife and
4 children to support and that
he is a first offender in respect of
the offence under review.
[4] While I am alive to
the fact that the learned Magistrate, quite correctly, regarded the
accusedâs position of trust as a prison
monitor, and that he is a
long term prisoner as severely aggravating, I am nevertheless of the
view that, the sentence imposed was
unnecessarily harsh given the
mitigating features of the case referred to.
[5] In my view, a
sentence of R1 500 or 3 months imprisonment would have satisfied the
deterrent aspects of punishment sought to be
emphasized and served by
the learned Magistrate.
[6] The
conviction is therefore confirmed and the sentence set aside and the
following sentence substituted therefore:
A fine of R1 500,00 (one
thousand five hundred rand) or 3 (three) months imprisonment.
In
so far as it may be relevant, the sentence must be deemed to have
been imposed on 3 October 2006.
_____________
S.
EBRAHIM, J
I concur.
_______________
G.F.
WRIGHT, J
/em