• Law Reports
  • S v Seboko (563/2003) [2005] ZAFSHC 126 (17 …

S v Seboko (563/2003) [2005] ZAFSHC 126 (17 June 2005)

50 Reportability
Criminal Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Sentencing — Disparity in sentences for similar offences — Accused convicted of possession of 3.8kg dagga sentenced to R1,500 or 9 months imprisonment — Comparison with another case where accused convicted of dealing in 5.95kg dagga received a lesser sentence of R1,000 or 6 months imprisonment, half suspended — Magistrate conceded that original sentence was inappropriate — Court intervened to correct the disparity, replacing the sentence with R800 or 4 months imprisonment.

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 126
|

|

S v Seboko (563/2003) [2005] ZAFSHC 126 (17 June 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No.: 563/2005
In
the case between:
THE STATE
and
HENDRICK MASAO
SEBOKO
CORAM:
BECKLEY J
et
RAMPAI J
JUDGEMENT:
BECKLEY J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
17
JUNE 2005
_____________________________________________________
[1] The accused was
convicted of possessing 3,8kg dagga in the magistrate’s court at
Ficksburg. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced
to a fine of R1
500,00, or 9 months imprisonment. When a copy of the proceedings
were received for automatic review, it appeared
that, in another
matter, the state versus Serama Matsoai, the accused was convicted of
dealing in 5,95kg dagga and was sentenced
to a R1 000,00 or 6 months
imprisonment, half of which was suspended for a period of two years
on certain conditions.
[2] Because of the
disparity between the two sentences, the disparity being exacerbated
by the fact that the accused in the present
case was convicted of the
lesser offence, namely, being in possession of dagga, and the fact
that half the sentence was suspended
in the case of state versus
Serama Matsoai, the presiding magistrate was requested to furnish
reasons for the disparity. The “temporal
magistrate: Ficksburg”
conceded in the reasons that she furnished for the disparity, that
the sentence in the present case is not
appropriate. The concession
made by the magistrate is obviously in order and it stands to reason
that this court is in duty bound
to interfere with the sentence. The
sentence proffered by the presiding magistrate in her reasons, is
that the sentence be replaced
with one of a fine of R800,00, or 4
months imprisonment. I agree with the suggestion of the magistrate.
In the result, the following
order is made:
The conviction is
confirmed. The sentence is set aside and replaced by a sentence of
R800,00 or 4 months imprisonment.
_______________
A.P. BECKLEY, J
I concur.
______________
M.H.
RAMPAI, J
/em

Back to Law Reports