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
>>
2005
>>
[2005] ZAFSHC 125
|
|
S v Mohapi (642/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 125 (17 June 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review Case No.: 642/2005
In
the case between:
THE STATE
and
MOLOI EPHRIAM
MOHAPI
CORAM:
WRIGHT J
et
H.M.
MUSI J
JUDGEMENT:
WRIGHT J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
17 JUNE 2005
_____________________________________________________
The accused, a 34 year
old man, was convicted of the contravention of section 4(b) of Act
140/1992, and more specifically possession
of 2kg of dagga. He was
sentenced to 36 months imprisonment.
The main reason for this
heavy sentence is the accusedâs previous convictions and the fact,
mentioned by the magistrate in his reasons,
that the accused
testified that he sometimes smokes and sells dagga. He has no less
than 11 previous convictions including 3 convictions
of housebreaking
and 3 convictions of theft. He also has 4 previous convictions of
possession of dagga for which he was sentenced
to fines ranging from
approximately R100,00 to R900,00. The most serious sentence seems to
be one of three months imprisonment without
the option of a fine.
The present sentence is therefore out of proportion to the crime as
well as to the amount of dagga involved.
After considering all the
facts including those a mentioned by the magistrate in his reasons
and appearing from the record, I consider
that the sentence set out
below would be more appropriate even taking into consideration the
picture of the accused which appears
from the previous convictions as
well as his evidence. There is no problem with the conviction.
The
following order is therefore made:
The conviction is
confirmed but the sentence set aside and the following sentence
substituted therefore: 18 months imprisonment of
which 9 months are
suspended for a period of 4 years on the condition that the accused
is not found guilty of the contravention of
section 4(b) Act 140/1992
committed during the period of his suspension.
The sentence must be
deemed to have been imposed on the 18
th
of May 2005.
_____________
G.F
WRIGHT, J
I concur,
___________
H.M.
MUSI, J
/em