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 137
|
|
S v Mohlekoa (1086/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 137 (7 October 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No.: 1086/2005
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
MOHLEKOA MOHLEKOA
CORAM:
EBRAHIM J,
et
BLOEM, AJ
JUDGEMENT:
BLOEM, AJ
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
7 OCTOBER 2005
_____________________________________________________
[1] The accused appeared
in the magistrateâs court at Ficksburg where he was charged in
terms of the provisions of the Drugs and
Drug Trafficking Act, 1992
(Act No. 140 of 1992) with dealing in dagga alternatively possession
of dagga. He pleaded guilty to and
was convicted on the charge of
possession of dagga after he was questioned in terms of the
provisions of section 112(1)(b) of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 1977
(Act No. 51 of 1977). He was sentenced to pay a fine of R700,00 or 5
months imprisonment.
[2] In my view the
accused was properly convicted of possession of 8.4kg of dagga. The
conviction should accordingly be confirmed.
[3] The accused is a
first offender. He is 18 years of age. He is not schooling. He
earns an income of approximately R300,00 per
month by washing taxis.
With that money he buys groceries for his two siblings who are
attending school. The accused and his siblings
live with their aunt
because their mother left them some time ago. She does not send
money to her children.
[4] The possession of
dagga is an offence which is regularly committed within the area of
jurisdiction of this court. The court has
a duty to act against
those who make themselves guilty of such unlawful conduct. However
the sentence to be imposed on a person
convicted of possession of
dagga should befit the offender, the offence and the interests of the
community.
[5] The magistrate seems
to have paid too much attention to the offence and the interests of
the community without paying due attention
to the personal
circumstances of the accused. Had he properly balanced the above
three factors, he would have realised that, given
the circumstances
of this case, the sentence which he imposed on the accused was too
heavy. There is sufficient cause to interfere
with the sentence.
[6] In
all the circumstances the conviction is confirmed. The sentence is
set aside and replaced with imprisonment of 6 months which
is wholly
suspended for three years on condition that the accused will not be
convicted of possession of dagga committed during the
period of
suspension for which an unsuspended period of imprisonment is
imposed.
______________
G.H.
BLOEM, AJ
I concur.
_____________
S.
EBRAHIM, J
/em