About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZASCA 99
|
|
Lungisa v S (696/2019) [2020] ZASCA 99; 2021 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (9 September 2020)
THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case No: 696/2019
In
the matter between:
ANDILE
LUNGISA
APPELLANT
and
THE
STATE
RESPONDENT
Neutral
citation:
Lungisa
v The State
(Case
no 696/2019)
[2020]
ZASCA
99(9
September 2020)
Coram:
MAYA P and DAMBUZA and NICHOLLS JJA and
WEINER and MABINDLA-BOQWANA AJJA
Heard:
Matter
disposed without oral hearing in terms of
s
19
(a)
of
the
Superior Courts
Act 10 of 2013
.
Delivered:
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email, publication
on the
Supreme Court of Appeal website and release to SAFLII. The date
and time for hand-down is deemed to be 15h00 on 9
September 2020.
Ukuwiswa:
Esi
sigwebo sawiswa ngeintanethi, ngokusiwa kubathetheleli bamacala
onke ngeimeyili, nangokupapashwa kwisiza sonxi-belelwano
seNkundla
yeziBheno ePhakamileyo
nangokufakwa
ku-SAFLII
. Umhla nexesha lokuwiswa kwaso
uthathwa njengokuba ngulo: ngu-15h00 ngomhla we-9 kweyo Msintsi ka
2020.
Summary
:
Sentence
– appeal against imposition of effective sentence of two
years’ imprisonment for assault with intent
to cause
grievous bodily harm to fellow municipal councillor –
whether trial court exercised discretion improperly
–
whether sentence is disproportionate – appeal
dismissed.
Isishwankathelo
:
Isohlwayo
– isibheno esichasa ukunikwa kwesohlwayo
sokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka emibini epheleleyo ngenxa
yokuhlasela ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni ugxa wakhe
ongomnye wooceba bakwamasipala – ingaba inkundla eyavavanya
ityala yasebenzisa
ilungelo layo lokwenza isigqibo
ngokungafanelekanga na – ingaba isohlwayo sigqithisile
na – isibheno
sachithwa.
ORDER
UMYALELO
On appeal from:
Eastern
Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown (Roberson J and Renqe
AJ (concurring) sitting as a court of appeal):
1. Condonation for the late filing of the
appellant’s notice of appeal is granted.
2. Condonation for the late filing of the
respondent’s heads of argument is granted.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
Kwisibheno esivela
:
KwiSahlulo SeNkundla ePhakamileyo SaseMpuma Koloni, eGrahamstown
(NguRoberson J noRenqe AJ (bevumelana) behleli njengenkundla
yesibheno):
1. Isicelo sombheni sokuxolelwa kokungeniswa kade
kwesaziso sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa.
2. Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa kokungeniswa
kade kwezihloko zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa.
3. Isibheno siyachithwa.
JUDGMENT
ISIGWEBO
Mabindla-Boqwana AJA (Maya P and Dambuza and
Nicholls JJA and Weiner AJA concurring):
NguMabindla-Boqwana AJA (uMaya P noDambuza
noNicholls JJA noWeiner AJA bevumelana):
[1] The appellant, Mr Andile Lungisa,
appeared before the Port Elizabeth Magistrates’ Court (Mr
Cannon) on a charge
of assault with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was
subsequently convicted
of that charge on 17 April 2018. On 9 May
2018 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, of which
one year was
suspended for a period of five years on condition
that he was not convicted of assault with intent to cause grievous
bodily
harm or assault, committed during the period of suspension.
[1] Umbheni, uMnu. Andile Lungisa, wayevele phambi
kweNkundla yeeMantyi yaseBhayi (kuMnu. Cannon) emangangalelwe
ngokuhlasela
ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni. Waliphika
ityala, waza emva koko wafunyanwa enalo elotyala ngowe-17
kuTshaz’iimpuzi
ka-2018. Ngowe-9 kuCanzibe ka-2018 wanikwa
isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka emithathu, ekwathi
unyaka omnye kuloo
minyaka waxhonywa ithuba eliyiminyaka emihlanu,
phantsi komqathango wokuba engasayi kufunyanwa kwakhona enetyala
lokuhlasela
ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni okanye
elokuhlasela, ekwenza ngelixesha lokuxhonywa kwawo.
[2] With the leave of the Eastern Cape
Division of the High Court, Grahamstown (the high court), he
appealed against both
his conviction and sentence. His appeal was
dismissed on 2 April 2019 and the high court only adjusted the
condition attached
to the suspended portion of his sentence.[1] He
thereafter lodged a petition with this Court
and was granted special leave to appeal against his sentence only,
on
27
May 2019.
[2] Wathi ke ngemvume yeSahlulo seNkundla
ePhakamileyo yaseMpuma Koloni, eGrahamstown (inkundla
ephakamileyo), wabhena ngakwisigwebo
esi sokuba netyala,
kwanesohlwayo eso wayesinikiwe. Isibheno sakhe sachithwa ngowesi-2
kuTshaz’iimpuzi ka-2019 yaza
inkundla yalungelelanisa nje
lamqathango uhamba nalaandawo ixhonyiweyo yesohlwayo sakhe. Uye
emva koko wafaka isicelo sokubhena
kuleNkundla, waza wanikwa
imvume ekhethekileyo yokuba abhene ngakwisohlwayo kuphela,
ngowama-27 kuCanzibe ka-2019.
[3] The parties agreed to have the
appeal determined without the hearing of oral argument in terms of
s 19
(a)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
(the
Superior Courts Act). An
issue to be
disposed of before consideration of the merits of the appeal
relates to two condonation applications brought
by both parties,
one pertaining to the late filing of the notice of appeal by the
appellant and the other relating to the
late filing of the heads
of argument by the respondent. Both applications were unopposed
and, having perused the relevant
affidavits, I am satisfied that
good cause has been shown for condonation to be granted.
[3] Umbheni kunye nombuso
bavumelana
ukuba isibheno eso siqwalaselwe kungakhange kuviwe zingxoxo
mpikiswano ngqo ngokomlomo, oko kusenziwa
ngokwemimiselo
yesolotya elingu s
19
(a)
woMthetho
weeNkundla eziNgentla we-
10 ka-2013
(uMthetho weeNkundla eziNgentla). Umba
ekufuneka kuqalwe ngawo phambi kokunika ingqalelo kwinkqu
yesibheno esi zizicelo
ezibini zoxolelo ezingeniswe
ngawo omabini amaqela, omnye uphathelele nokungeniswa kade
kwesaziso sokubhena ngumbheni,
omnye ingulowo wokungeniswa kade
kwezihloko
zengxoxo
ngumphenduli.
Zozibini ezi zicelo zange kubekho cala liziphikisayo; ke, ndakuba
ndiwagocagocile amaxwebhu
obungqina,
ndanelisekile kukuba zikhona izizathu
ezivakalayo zokuba eziziphene zixolelwe.
[4] The appellant’s conviction
ema-nates from events which took place in the Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipality Council
(the Council) chamber at a meeting held on 27
October 2016. At that meeting the appellant, who is a member
of the African
National Congress (ANC) and was, at the time of the
incident, its leader in the Council, grievously assaulted one Mr
Ryno
Kayser (the complainant), a Democratic Alliance (DA)
councillor. The incident, which was recorded by Mr Ronaldo Gouws,
also
a DA councillor, on his cell phone, occurred during a debate
involving the conduct of another ANC Councillor, Mr Sabani, at a
previous meeting. Due to the fact that a matter concerning him was
to be discussed, the Speaker, Mr Jonathan Lawack had requested
Mr
Sabani to leave the Chamber. Mr Sabani refused to do so causing
the Speaker to call for security personnel to remove him.
Security
members were prevented from approaching Mr Sabani by certain
members of the Council, including the appellant.
[4] Ukufunyaniswa enetyala kombheni lo
kususela kwizehlo ezenzeka kwigumbi leBhunga
lika-Masipala
waseNelson Mandela Bay (iBhunga) kwiintlanganiso
eyayibanjwe ngomhla wama-27 kweyeDwarha ngo-2016. Kuloo
ntlanganiso umbheni
lo, olilungu lombutho i-African National
Congress (i-ANC) nowaye, ngelo xesha kusenzeka lento, eyinkokheli
yawo lo mbutho
phaya kwelaaBhunga, wahlasela ngokuyingozi uMnu.
Ryno Kayser (ummangali), uceba weDemocratic Alliance (i-DA). Esi
sehlo,
esathi sashicelelwa nguMnu. Ronaldo Gouws, naye enguceba
we-DA, kumnxeba wakhe oyiselula, sehla ngexesha
lengxoxo-mpikiswano
eyayi-malunga nokuziphatha komnye
uceba we-ANC, uMnu. Sabani, kwintlanganiso eyayingaphambili.
Ngenxa yokuba
kwakuza kuxoxwa ngomba omalunga naye, uSomlomo,
uMnu. Jonathan Lawack, wayemcelile uMnu. Sabani ukuba aphume kulo
iGumbi
elo. UMnu. Sabani wala ukwenjenjalo, nto leyo eyabangela
ukuba uSomlomo abize abezokhuselo ukuza kumkhupha. Amalungu
ezokhuselo
athintelwa ukuba asondele kuMnu. Sabani ngamalungu
athile eBhunga elo, ekwakukho kuwo nombheni lo.
[5] A motion which caused consternation among ANC
councillors was adopted by the Council in respect of Mr Sabani.
The meeting
then descended into chaos. At this point, the
appellant and another ANC councillor, Mr Feni, approached the
Speaker’s
precinct. Mr Feni grabbed the Speaker by the arm
and the complainant moved towards the Speaker’s table to
intervene.
It is at this stage that the appellant hit the
complainant on his head with a glass jug filled with water. The
complainant
fell to the ground and bled profusely. He became
unconscious and was taken to hospital, where he received medical
treatment.
He sustained a three centimetre long, one centimetre
deep laceration with an underlying haematoma on the left temple, a
small
flap laceration on the left ear, multiple linear abrasions
(about five to ten centimetres long) on the left side of the neck
from which pieces of glass had to be surgically removed, and a
‘deep’ four centimetre long abrasion on the upper
chest. The laceration on his left temple was sutured.
[5] Kwabakho ke isiphakamiso
esabangela ukunxunguphala phakathi kooceba be-ANC esathi samkelwa
liBhunga ngokubhekise
kuMnu. Sabani. Intlanganiso ke ngoku yasuka
yaba ngumbhodamo. Kwesi sithuba, umbheni lo kunye nomnye uceba we-
ANC, uMnu.
Feni, baya ngakwiqonga likaSomlomo. UMnu.
Feni wanqakula uSomlomo ngengalo waza ummangali wasondela
ngasetafileni
kaSomlomo ukuya kungenelela. Kwaba kwesi sithuba ke
apho umbheni lo wabetha ummangali entloko ngejagi yegilasi ezele
amanzi.
Ummangali wawa phantsi, wopha ngamandla. Wakhe wemkelwa
ziingqondo waza wasiwa esibhedlele, apho wafumana unyango
loogqirha.
Waba nenxeba elinzulu elinokudlakazeka, elibude
buzii-sentimitha ezintathu, nobunzulu obuyisentimitha enye,
likwanalo negazi
elenze ihlwili apha ngaphantsi kwalo, kwintlafuno
yasekhohlo, kwabakho nelinye inxeba lokukrazuka
endlebeni yasekhohlo,
imigruzuko emininzi ebude (bumalunga
neesentimitha ezintlanu ukuya kutsho kwezilishumi) kwicala
langasekhohlo lentamo apho
kwakhutshwa iingceba zegilasi
ngokusikwa athungwe; kwabakho nenxeba ‘elinzulu’
eliziisentimitha ezine kumantla
esifuba. Laa mgruzuko
ukwintlafuno yasekhohlo wathungwa.
[6] In convicting the appellant, the trial
court found the appellant to have been an extremely poor witness
who tailored
his version as the trial progressed. The high court
echoed the findings of the trial court and confirmed the
appellant’s
conviction in its well-reasoned judgment.
As to sentence, the trial court expressed that a non-custodial
sentence would
be inappropriate as it ‘would over-emphasise
the personal circum-stances of the accused to the detriment of the
seriousness
and prevalence of the offence, as well as the
community interest and the interest of the complainant.’ It
observed
that despite the appellant being a first offender, he was
convicted of a serious crime. The high court declined to interfere
with the trial court’s sentencing discretion holding that,
whilst the sentence was robust, in its view, the difference
between what it would have imposed and the actual sentence imposed
by the trial court was not so significant as to justify
its
interference.
[6] Ekumfumaneni enetyala umbheni, inkundla
eyayivavanya elityala yamfumanisa umbheni elingqina elibuthathaka
gqitha elamane
ukulakha elalo icala lebali ngokuya kuqhubeka
ukuthethwa kwetyala. Inkundla ephakamileyo yazingqina iziphumo
zenkundla ebivavanya
elityala, yakuqinisekisa ukufunyanwa kombheni
enetyala, kwisigwebo sayo esasizathuzelwe kakuhle. Malunga
nesohlwayo, inkundla
eyayivavanya ityala yavakalisa ukuba
isohlwayo sangaphandle kwejele sasiya kuba sesingafanelekanga
njengoko ‘sasiya
kusuke sigxininise gqitha ekuboneleleni
iimeko zobuqu zalo ungumtyholwa, ize loonto ikhokelele
kumngcipheko wokuba bungasiwa
so ububi bolu lwaphulo-mthetho
nokuxhaphaka kwalo, kanti nokulungelwa kwabantu ekuhlaleni,
nokulungelwa kommangali.’
Inkundla leyo yatsho nokuthi,
nakuba umbheni lo wayesisaphuli-mthetho esiqalayo, eli tyala
wayefunyenwe enalo lityala elibi,
elinobuzaza. Inkundla
ephakamileyo ke yala ukuphazamisana nendlela eye yabona ngayo
inkundla eyayivavanya elityala
isithi, nangona
isohlwayo eso siqatha, ngokwembono yayo, umahluko phakathi
kwesohlwayo ebiyakusiwisa yona kunye nesosohlwayo
siwisiweyo
yinkundla eyavavanya ityala, wawungemkhulu ngokwaneleyo ukuba
kuthetheleleke ukusiphazamisa esaa sigqibo salaankundla
yokuqala.
[7] The essence of the appeal is that
the sentence imposed by the trial court is shockingly
inappropriate in that the
trial court did not properly balance the
personal circumstances of the appellant with the seriousness of
the offence and
interests of society, leading to a misdirection
which merits interference by this Court. It was particularly
contended that
the trial court downplayed the achievements of the
appellant and the fact that he has a wife and children to look
after.
Further, it did not consider that the event happened in ‘a
moment of madness’ and was ‘a spur of the moment’
attack, albeit serious and brutal. It was submitted that the
appellant was sacrificed at the altar of deterrence and that
a
higher standard was applied in assessing his blame-worthiness
because of his high political profile than would have been
applied
to an ordinary person.
Counsel for the
appellant suggested that an appropriate sentence in these
circumstances would be correctional supervision
in terms of s
276(1)
(h)
of
the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the Criminal Procedure
Act)[2] or, if this court finds that a custodial sentence
is
necessary, a sentence in terms of s 276(1)
(i)
of that
Act.[3]
[7] Oyena ndoqo wesi sibheno yile ndawo ithi
isohlwayo esanikwa yin-kundla eyavavanya ityala
sinokungafaneleki
ngendlela eyothusayo, kuba loo nkundla zange
yenze mlinganiso ufanelekileyo phakathi kweemeko zobuqu zombheni
nobubi, nobuzaza
bolwaphulo-mthetho olo kwanokulungelwa koluntu,
nto leyo ikhokelele ekubeni kwenzeke ulahlekiso-mthethweni
olukufaneleyo
ukuphazanyiswa yileNkundla. Eyona nto kwaxhwithwana
ngayo ngokukodwa kukuba inkundla eyavavanya ityala yazithatha
kancinci
izenzo zempumelelo zombheni kwanokuba unomfazi nabantwana
abaxhomekeke kuye. Ngaphezulu, ayizange iyithathele ngqalelo
into yokuba esisehlo senzeka ‘ngethutyana lokuba buphambana’
saye sasiluhlaselo olwasuka lwazigqabhukela ngaloo
mzuzu, nakuba
eneneni luyinto enobuzaza kwakunye noburhalarhume. Kwathiwa ke
umbheni unqunqelwe egoqweni ekuthiwa luthintelo-bubi,
kwaza
kwasetyenziswa umgangatho ongqwabalala kakhulu kunokuba kufuneka
ekujongeni ukuba nobutyala kwakhe, loo nto isenziwa
liwonga lakhe
eliphezulu ngokwepolitiki, kunokuba bekuya kwenziwa kumntu njee.
Umthetheleli wombheni waphakamisa ukuba isohlwayo
esifanelekileyo
kwezi meko sesokugwetyelwa ngaphantsi kweliso labezoBulungisa
ngokwemimiselo yecandelo lama-276(1)(h) loMthetho
weeNkqubo
zoLwaphulo-mthetho wama-51 ka-1977 okanye, ukuba le nkundla
ifumanisa ukuba isohlwayo esinentolongo siyafuneka,
sisohlwayo
ngokwemimiselo yecandelo lama-276(1)(i) lawo looMthetho.
[8] It is a well-established
sentencing principle that the determination of sentence is
principally a matter for the
trial court’s discretion.[4]
Grounds upon which a court of appeal may interfere with a
sentence imposed by a
trial court are confined. The approach to be
followed by the appellate court when dealing with sentence has
been stated in
many judgments of this Court. It was aptly
summarised in
S v Hewitt
[5]
as follows:
‘An appellate court may not interfere with [the
discretion of the trial court] merely because it would have
imposed
a different sentence. In other words, it is not enough to
conclude that its own choice of penalty would have
been an appropriate
penalty. Something more is required;
it must conclude that its own choice of penalty is the appropriate
penalty and that
the penalty chosen by the trial court is not.
Thus, the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial court
committed
a misdirection of such a nature, degree and seriousness
that shows that it did not exercise its sentencing discretion at
all or exercised it improperly or unreasonably when imposing it.
So, interference is justified only where there exists a ‘striking’
or ‘startling’ or ‘disturbing’ disparity
between the trial court’s sentence and that which
the
appellate court would have imposed. And in such instances the
trial court’s discretion is regarded as having been
unreasonably exercised.’ (Footnotes omitted)
The appellate court must, therefore,
determine whether there is any basis for interference on those
circumscribed
grounds.
[8] Ngumgqaliselo ekudala wasekwayo ukuba
ukuqingqwa kwesohlwayo ngumbandela oselungelweni lwenkundla
eyavavanya ityala. Izizathu
enokuthi inkundla yezibheno
iphazamisane ngazo nesohlwayo esinikwe yinkundla evavanya ityala
zimbalwa. Inkqubo elandelwa
yinkundla yezibheno xa iphethe
isohlwayo ixeliwe kwizigwebo ezininzi zaleNkundla. Yashwankathelwa
ngokuchanekileyo ku- S
v Hewitt ngolu hlobo lulandelayo:
‘Inkundla yezibheno mayingaphazamisani [nelungelo
lokwenza isigqibo lenkundla eyavavanya ityala] ngesizathwana njee
sokuba yona ibiyakunika isohlwayo esahlukileyo. Ngamanye amazwi,
akwanele ukugqiba kwelokuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo siso ebesiya
kuba sisohlwayo esifanelekileyo. Kufuneka into ethe chatha;
kufuneka igqibe ukuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo sesona sohlwayo
sifanelekileyo kwanokuba isohlwayo ebesikhethwe yinkundla
ebivavanya ityala asisiso esifanelekileyo. Ngoko, inkundla
yezibheno kufuneka izanelise ukuba inkundla evavanye ityala yenze
ulahlekiso-mthethweni oluluhlobo, isigaba nobuzaza ezibonakalisa
ukuba, ayikhange ilisebenzise ilungelo lokwenza isigqibo
konke-konke okanye yalisebenzisa ngendlela engafanelekanga okanye
engacingeliyo xa yayinika isohlwayo eso. Ngoko ke, uphazamiso
luthetheleleka kuphela apho kukho ukwahlukana ‘okugqamileyo’
okanye ‘okothusayo’ okanye ‘okunxubisayo’
phakathi kwesohlwayo senkundla eyavavanya ityala neso
ibiyakusinika inkundla yezibheno. Kwizehlo ezinjalo ke,
ilungelo lokwenza isigqibo lenkundla evavanye ityala lithathwa
njengelisetyenziswe ngendlela engacingeliyo.’ (Amanqakwana
ange-zantsi ashiyiwe.)
Inkundla yezibheno imele, ke ngoko, ukuba
ijonge ukuba ingaba sikhona na isizathu sokuphazamisana nesohlwayo
kuloo mida isikiweyo
.
[9] In exercising its discretion, the trial court
must weigh both mitigating and aggravating factors, focused on the
nature
of the crime, the personal circumstances of the offender
and the interests of society. As indicated above, the
contention
in this case, is that although the offence committed by
the appellant was particularly serious, the trial court accorded
insufficient weight to the personal circumstances and exaggerated
the moral blameworthiness of the appellant.
[9] Ekusebenziseni ilungelo layo lokwenza isigqibo
inkundla evavanya ityala kufuneka ivelele iimeko ezibunciphisayo
ubutyala
nezo zibongezayo, iqwalasele ukuba lityala
elinjani, neemeko zobuqu zomaphuli-mthetho lowo, kunye neemeko
zokulungelwa
koluntu ngokubanzi. Njengoko sekuxeliwe
ngasentla apha, isikhalazo sombheni kweli tyala, kukuba nakuba
ulwaphulo-mthetho
lwakhe lwalunobuzaza ngendlela eyodwa, inkundla
eyavavanya ityala, iimeko zobuqu zakhe zange izinike ukubaluleka
okwaneleyo,
yakubaxa nokuziphatha kwakhe.
[10] The appellant was 38 years old at
the time of sentencing. He is married with seven children. He is
gainfully
employed as a municipal councillor and as an ad hoc
writer. His parents and siblings are also dependent on him. His
achievements
and contribution to society as a political activist
have gained him the respect of many within his community. It was
submitted
on the appellant’s behalf that he was respected by
a number of his fellow councillors, had a good relationship with
the complainant prior to the assault incident and is a first
offender. These factors must be considered together with the
nature and seriousness of the offence and the interests of
society.
[10] Umbheni wayeneminyaka engama -38
ubudala ngexesha enikwa isohlwayo esi. Utshatile, enabantwana
abasixhenxe. Uqeshiwe
ngokunenzuzo njengoceba wakwamasipala
ekwangumbhali wamaxesha ngamaxesha. Abazali bakhe kwanabantakwabo
bakwaxhomekeke kuye.
Izenzo zakhe eziyimpumelelo kwanegalelo lakhe
eluntwini njengesiquququ sezepolitiki zimenze waba ngumntu
ohlonitshiweyo ngabaninzi
ekuhlaleni. Kwatshiwo ke, egameni
lombheni lo, ukuba wayehlonitshiwe liqela loogxa bakhe
abangooceba, kwaye wayenobudlelwane
obuhle kunye nommangali
ngaphambi kwesehlo sohlaselo, waye ekwangumntu oqalayo ukona.
Ezizinto ke maziqwalaselwe kunye nobunjani,
kwanobubi obunobuzaza
bolwaphulo-mthetho olu, kwakunye nokulungelwa koluntu ngokubanzi.
[11] It was conceded on the appellant’s
behalf that the offence he committed was ‘particularly
serious and
even egregious’. The respondent highlighted the
fact that the ‘weapon’ used in assaulting the
complainant
was particularly dangerous. The complai-nant was hit
with such force that the glass jug shattered. The assault, which
was
applied on a sensitive part of the complainant’s head,
his temple, could have resulted in death or brain damage. It was
also stressed that the complainant was told by the doctor that he
was ‘lucky to be alive’. The medico-legal report
clearly evidences the life threatening nature of the injuries
sustained by the complainant.
[11] Kwavunywa kona, egameni lombheni, ukuba
ulwaphulo-mthetho olu walwenzayo ‘lwalunobubi obunobuzaza
ngendlela eyodwa,
kunjalonje lutsibe ilitye likaphungela.
Umphenduli (uMbuso)
wayigqamisa
inyaniso yokuba ‘isikhali’ awahlasela ummangali ngaso
sasinobungozi ngokukodwa. Ummangali wabethwa
ngamandla
kangangokuba loojagi yegilasi yaqhekeka yaziingceba.
Ummangali
wabethwa kwindawo e ethe-ethe entloko, entlafunweni, nto leyo
yayinokumbulala okanye imenzakalise ubuchopho.
Yagxininiswa
nento yokuba ummangali waxelelwa ngugqirha ukuba kwabalithamsanqa
ukuba abe usaphila. Ingxelo yoogqirha neyasemthethweni
inika
ubungqina obucacisayo ukuba amanxeba ommangali ayenobungozi.
[12] It is not in dispute that the attack
has had adverse, long term effects on the complainant. He still
suffers from
short-term memory loss, migraines, and emotional
distress. The trial court cannot be faulted for underscoring the
gravity
of the offence. The concession as to the seriousness of
the offence and its impact on the complainant was well made by the
appellant’s counsel.
[12] Ayiphikiseki
into yokuba olu hlaselo luye lwaba neziphumo ezibi, neziyakuphela
emva kwexesha
elide kummangali. Ummangali usamane ukulahlekwa
kukukhumbula izinto ezisanda kwenzeka, ekhathazwa kukuqaqanjelwa
kakhulu
yintloko nakukudandatheka ngokweemvakalelo. Inkundla
eyavavanya ityala ayinakugxekwa ngokububeka bucace gca
ubunzulu
bobubi bolu lwaphulo-mthetho.
Nomthetheli
wombheni lo ubuvume ngokuphandle ububi
nobuzaza bolu lwaphulo-mthetho kwanomphumela walo kummangali.
[13] The trial court also correctly found that the
community is entitled to expect a high level of responsible
behaviour and
maturity from its leaders. Municipal councillors are
entrusted with making decisions that profoundly affect the quality
of
lives and livelihoods of their communities. As the forum
where these decisions are made, the council chamber is intended
to
provide a safe platform for the exposition of differing
viewpoints, opinions and robust debates. Political party
representatives
should be exemplary in their keen understanding of
the values of freedom of expression and respect for rules of
engagement.
The integrity and credibility of the municipal
administration in the eyes of the community should not be
compromised. The
community expects its representatives to uphold
the law and to act in accordance with the rules. If councillors
resort to
aggression and violence when decisions do not favour
them, the interests of society are undermined.
[13] Inkundla eyavavanya ityala yenza
okulungileyo ngokufumanisa ukuba uluntu lunelungelo lokulindela
ukuziphatha
okukwinqanaba eliphezulu ngenkathalo nokuvuthwa
kwengqondo ngokwezenzo kwiinkokeli zalo. Ooceba bakamasipala
baphathiswe
umsebenzi wokwenza izigqibo ezichaphazela ngokunzulu
udidi nomgangatho wobomi kunye neendlela
zokuphila
zabantu kwiindawo zabo zasekuhlaleni. Njengeqonga
ezenzelwa kulo ezizigqibo, igumbi leBhunga limiselwe ukuba libe
yindawo
ekhuselekileyo apho kuboniswana ngeembono ezahlukeneyo,
nezimvo ezingafaniyo kunye neengxoxo ezishushu. Abameli
bamaqela
ezopolitiko bamele ukuba babe yimizekelo njengabantu
abayiqonda nzulu imithetho yenkululeko yokuvakalisa izimvo
nokuhlonipha
imigaqo yothetha-thethwano nokuxoxa. Ukunyaniseka
kwanokuthenjwa kolawulo loomasipala emehlweni oluntu mayingabi
zizinto
ezithotywa isithozela. Uluntu lulindele ukuba
abameli balo bathobele umthetho, baziphathe ngokwemigaqo. Ukuba
ooceba babhenela kwiingcwangu nobungxwaba-ngxwaba obunezigalo xa
izigqibo zingahambisani nabo, ukulungelwa koluntu kunyhashelwa
phantsi.
[14] As a leader of the ANC in the Council, who
was responsible for instilling discipline among his fellow
councillors and
was a role model for aspiring political leaders,
the appellant had a responsibility to lead by example. Instead he
did the
opposite and his fellow councillors indeed took their cue
from him and also threw glasses at other councillors. The trial
court was correct in its description of the councillors’
conduct as that of ‘street thugs’ and in remarking
that the appellant’s conduct should not be tolerated.
[14] Njengenkokeli ye-ANC phaya kulo iBhunga,
eyayinoxanduva lokuphembelela ingqeqesho phakathi
koogxa bayo abangooceba
ekwangumzekelo ophambili kwiinkokeli
zepolitiki ezisakhulayo, umbheni wayenoxanduva lokukhokela ngokuba
ngumzekelo. Endaweni
yoko, wenza obekungalindelekanga kuye, baze
ke oogxa bakhe abangooceba, ngokwenene, bazeka mzekweni, benza
njengaye nabo,
bagibisela iigilasi kwabanye ooceba. Inkundla
eyavavanya ityala yayinyanisile xa yayithelekisa ukuziphatha
kwabaceba njengokuziphatha
‘kwemigulukudu yasesitalatweni’
nangokutsho ukuba isimilo sombheni lo masinganyanyezelwa.
[15] Our country presently
suffers from uncontrolled and unacceptable levels of violence. The
community expects
the courts to impose sentences that recognise
this prevalence and show its repugnance and contempt for such
conduct. Assault
with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is one
of those offences that are pervasive in our society. While
custodial sentences
are not the ultimate solution, they play a
role in sending a message not only to the appellant but to
would-be offenders,
that regardless of one’s position in
society, the law will take its course and appropriate sentences
will be meted
out.[6] This is not to sacrifice the appellant at
the altar of deterrence, but to levy a sentence fitting of the
particular
circumstances of the case. I
may add that the sentence imposed by the trial court would,
in my
view, equally befit even an ordinary member of society, if due
regard is had to the seriousness of the offence.
[15] Ilizwe lethu kunamhla nje liyonakala
ngamanqanaba angalawulekiyo nangamkelekanga obungxwaba-ngxwaba
obunezigalo. Abantu
ke balindele ukuba iinkundla ziwise izohlwayo
ezikubonisayo ukunanzwa koluxhaphako nokungamkeleki koku
kuziphatha kunje.
Uhlaselo ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi
emzimbeni lusesinye sezozenzo zolwaphulo-mthetho ezigubungele
uluntu lwethu.
Noxa izohlwayo ezihamba nentolongo zingesiso
izisombululo esigqibeleleyo, ziyayenza indima yokuthumela umyalezo
ongayi kumbheni
lo kuphela, kodwa oya nakwabanye abaseceba
ukwaphula umthetho, othi nokuba sele ubani enewonga
eluntwini, umthetho
wona uya kuyi dlala indima yawo, ziwiswe
nezohlwayo ezifanelekileyo. Oko ayikokunqunqela umbheni lo
egoqweni lothintelo-bubi
kodwa kwenzelwa ukuba kubekwe isohlwayo
esifanelene ncam neemeko ezizodwa zeli tyala. Ndingongeza ndithi,
ngokokwam ukubona,
uhlobo lwesohlwayo esibekwe yinkundla
eyavavanya ityala, besiya kufaneleka kanye nakumntu njee olilungu
loluntu, xa kujongwe
ncakasana ubuzaza belityala.
[16] The further submission made on behalf
of the appellant as a mitigating factor, that the atmosphere in
the council chamber
was charged with anger and that members of all
the political parties in the Council exhibited unruly behaviour
towards each
other, does not take the matter any further. The
submission was that the incident happened ‘in a state of
uncontrollable
anger . . . and in a brief yet volatile and insane
attack on the complainant, all of which took a very short time.’
Interestingly, at the trial the appellant never contended that he
was provoked. His version was that he had acted in self-defence
when the complainant and other DA party members approached him in
a threatening manner. Further, later on the night of the
incident,
he laid with the local police a charge of attempted murder against
the complainant. In the relevant part, his statement
to the police
read: ‘[
the complainant
]
punched me with a clenched fist. I ducked he missed and in the
period gunshots were fired. I then started running towards
the
door. I then felt fists beating me on my back . . . There was also
a councillor with false teeth who dove trying to take
me down, I
jumped over him.’ Conspicuously missing from this
statement was the crucial fact that he struck the
complainant on
the head with a glass jug, which shattered and cut his own fingers
as well. Instead he told the police that
he did not know how he
sustained the cuts. His statement to the police was clearly
untruthful and measured to manipulate
the incident to his
advantage. The video footage firmly disproved his version in a
number of respects and his attempts to
salvage what was left of
his version only made matters worse. Both the trial court and the
high court carefully highlighted
these contradictions in their
judgments.
[16] Okunye okuthethiweyo egameni lombheni
njengombandela onokunciphisa ububi betyala kukuba umoya phaya
kwigumbi lebhunga
wawu ngowomsindo, amalungu awo onke amaqela
opolitiko endlongondlongo kwamanye, akuwuhambiseli phambili lo
mcimbi. Kuthiwe
esisehlo senzeka ‘kwimeko eyayinemisindo
engalawulekiyo . . . kwaye nokuhlaselwa kommangali kwenzeka
ngesiquphe esasiqhambuk’
umlilo nesasingekho zingqondweni,
izinto ezathatha ixesha elincinane kakhulu xa zizonke.’ Into
etsala umdla yile yokuba
ngexesha lokuxoxwa kwetyala umbheni lo
zange akhe amise ngelithi waye eqale woniwa. Wayesoloko esithi
yena waye ezikhusela
xa ummangali kunye namanye amalungu eqela
le-DA ayesiza kuye ngendlela egrogrisayo. Ngaphezu koko,
ngobusuku beso sehlo,
waya kumangala emapoliseni asekuhlaleni
esithi ummangali ebezama ukumbulala. Kule ndawo ifaneleneyo,
ingxelo yakhe kumapolisa
yayifundeka ngolu hlobo: ‘[ummangali]
undibethe ngenqindi. Ndiye ndaphepha, wandiphosa, kwaza ngelo
xesha kwabakho
udubulo ngemipu. Ndaza ndaqalisa
ukubaleka ndisiya ngasemnyango. Ndaza ndeva amanqindi endibetha
emqolo . . .
Kwakukwakho noceba owayenamazinyo okwenziwa,
owazijulayo ezama ukundiwisa, ndatsiba phezu kwakhe.’
Into
eyayibonakala gca ukuba ayikho kule ngxelo yayiyile
ingundoqo, eyokuba yena wabetha ummangali lo entloko ngejagi
yegilasi,
eyaphukayo yaza naye yamsika eminweni. Endaweni yoko,
wawaxelela amapolisa ukuba akazi ukuba wawafumana njani loo
manxeba
okusikeka. Ingxelo yakhe emapoliseni yayibubuxoki,
ibonakala ukuba yayilungiselelwe ukuba isijike esaa sehlo isenze
sibe
sesilungiselela yena. Imiboniso yeevidiyo yayiphikisa into
ayithethileyo ngokungathandabuzekiyo, kwimiba eliqela; yathi
nemizamo
yakhe yokuhlangula loo nto ishiyekileyo yecala lakhe
lebali, yayenza imeko yambi nangakumbi. Kwizigwebo zazo zombini
ezi
nkundla, le yavavanya ityala kunye nenkundla ephakamileyo,
zaye zazigqamisa ngenkathalokazi ezi ziphikisi-nyaniso.
[17] Ultimately the appellant was proved to have
been the aggressor on the day of the incident. He led the other
councillors
in acting in defiance of the Council rules and the
Speaker’s instructions. His explanation for approaching the
Speaker’s
precinct, purportedly to speak to him, which he
admitted was impermissible, amounted to a further falsehood and
was contradicted
by the evidence of the respondent’s
witnesses that Mr Feni, his co-aggressor, grabbed the Speaker by
the arm.
[17] Ekugqibeleni yaba nguye umbheni
owafunyaniswa ukuba yayinguye owaqala ukuhlasela ngomhla wesehlo.
Nguye owakhokela
abanye ooceba ukuba benze izenzo zokungayithobeli
imiyalelo yeBhunga nekaSomlomo. Inkcazo yakhe yesizathu sokuya
ngakumhlaba
kaSomlomo, esithi ke wayesiya kuthetha naye, nto ke
leyo phofu awayivumayo naye ukuba yayingavumelekanga, loonkcazo
yaphinda
yaba kokunye ukungathethi nyaniso, waza waphikiseka
bubungqina bamangqina omphenduli obuthi uMnu Feni,
owayengumhlaseli kunye
naye, wanqakula uSomlomo ngengalo.
[18] The appellant showed no remorse
for his actions.
In his communication
with the correctional supervision officer, he clearly did not
accept responsibility for his actions as
it was recorded in his
pre-sentence report that ‘[t]he accused does not admit guilt
of the count but … respects
and accepts the verdict of the
court.’ His explanation for what happened
displayed
no
unequivocal acceptance of wrongdoing
or penitence of the kind described in
S
v Matyityi.
[7] The Court in
Matyityi
observed, that ‘before a court can
find that an accused person is genuinely remorseful, it needs to
have a proper appreciation
of, inter alia: what motivated the
accused to commit the deed; what has since provoked his or her
change of heart; and whether
he or she does indeed have a true
appreciation of the consequences of those actions.’ The
appellant has shown none
of this. On the contrary, he changed his
version several times, in an attempt to place blame on others for
the altercation,
perjured himself in court by giving false
evidence, which was clearly contradicted by the video footage,
continued to deny
any wrongdoing and gave a false statement to the
police.
[18] Umbheni lo akabonakalisanga kuzisola ngezenzo
zakhe. Kuqhakamshelwano lwakhe negosa lokugada leSebe
lezoBulungisa zange
aluvume uxanduva lwezenzo zakhe njengoko
kwakubhaliwe kwingxelo yakhe yaphambi kokuba kunikwe isohlwayo
kwathiwa, ‘lo
mtyholwa akavumi ukuba unetyala ngale nto
kodwa ... uyasihlonipha, esamkela ke isigqibo senkundla’.
Inkcazo yakhe malunga
nento eyayenzekile zange ibonakalise ukuba
uyamkela ngaphandle kokuthandabuza nangokungenamavel’etshona
ukuba wenza
into engalunganga, okanye ukuzisola okulolu hlobo
luchazwe ku- S v Matyityi. INkundla phaya ku-Matyityi yathetha
yathi, ‘phambi
kokuba inkundla ibe nako ukufumanisa ukuba
umntu obekwa isityholo uyazisola ngokunyanisekileyo, kufuneka
ukuba iqondisise
kakuhle ukuba, phakathi kwezinye izinto:
yayiyintoni eyayimqhubile lo mtyholwa ukuba enze eso senzo
wasenzayo; kwenzeke ntoni
ukususela ngoko eyenze ukuba aguquke
entliziyweni; nokuba ingaba unako nyhani na ukuziqonda kakuhle
iziphumo zezo zenzo.’
Lo mbheni akabonisanga nanye yezi
zinto. Endaweni yoko, uliguqule ibali lakhe amaxesha aliqela,
ezama ukubeka ityala lalo
mlo phezu kwabanye abantu, uziveze
enkundleni njengexokisa-mthetho ngokunika ubungqina
obungeyonyaniso, obaphikiswayo ngokucacileyo
yimiboniso yeevidiyo,
waqhubeka ukukhanyela mpela ukuba wenze into engalunganga, wanika
nengxelo engeyonyaniso emapoliseni.
[19] In all the circumstances I find
that the high court was correct in its finding that there was no
misdirection
or improper exercise of the discretion by the
trial court. All the relevant factors were appropriately balanced.
That being the case, the appellate court is not
at large to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial
court. I must,
however, disagree with the high court on one
aspect, which is that the sentence imposed is a robust one. The
period of three
years’ imprisonment of which one year is
suspended on certain conditions (effectively a sentence of two
years’
imprisonment), meets the circumstances of this case
and is in keeping with sentences that have been imposed by the
courts
in similar cases. One similar case is S
v
Eales
[8]
where
the appellant had been convicted of assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm for striking the complainant on the
head with
a beer glass, in an unprovoked attack at a hotel. The attack
caused injuries and scarred the complainant’s
face. The
appellant was sentenced to three years’ direct imprisonment.
On appeal, the sentence was altered by suspending
one year of the
three years’ imprisonment for five years on certain
conditions. The exact sentence has been imposed
in this case.
Notably, the appellant in
Eales
was an ‘ordinary’ offender.
[19]
Kuzo zonke
ezi meko ndifumanisa ukuba inkundla ephakamileyo yagqiba
ngokufanelekilyo ekufumaneni kwayo ukuba zange kubekho
lulahlekiso-mthethweni okanye kusetyenziswa gwenxa kwe
lungelo
lokwenza isigqibo yinkundla evavanye ityala. Yawabeka onke
amasolotya esikalini ngendlela efanelekileyo. Xa kunjalo
ke,
inkundla yezibheno
ayikwazi
kusiphazamisa isohlwayo esabekwa
yinkundla eyavavanya ityala. Kodwa ke, kukho indawo enye
endingavumelani ngayo nenkundla
ephakamileyo; le ithi esi sohlwayo
sinikiweyo siqatha. Ixesha lokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka
emithathu, elinyaka
mnye oxhonyiweyo phezu kwemiqathango ethile
(ngokwenene esona sohlwayo sibe yiminyaka emibini entolongweni),
lizifanele
iimeko
zeli tyala kwaye lihambelana nezohlwayo
esezakhe zawiswa ziinkundla zamatyala kwimibandela efana nalo.
Elinye ityala elifanayo
lelika
S v Eales
apho umbheni waye efunyenwe enetyala lokuhlasela ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni
kuba
wayebethe ummangali entloko ngebhotile yegilasi, emhlasela
engamenzanga nto, ehotele ethile. Olo hlaselo lwabangela
amanxeba
neziva ebusweni bommangali. Loo mbheni wanikwa isohlwayo
esikukuyakudontsa entolongweni iminyaka emithathu ngqo.
Wathi
akubhena, isohlwayo eso saguqulwa ngokuxhonywa konyaka omnye
kuleya yokuyakudontsa entolongweni, exhonyelwa iminyaka
emihlanu
phantsi kwemiqathango ethile. Esi sohlwayo sinikiweyo kweli ityala
siyafana nqwa nesiya. Into eqaphelekayo ke kukuba
lo mbheni uphaya
ku-E
ales
wayengumaphuli-mthetho ongumntu ‘njee’ wasekuhlaleni.
[20] In
Makhudu
v Director of Public Prosecutions
,[9]
this Court found the position of the appellant, as a police
officer, to be a relevant aggravating factor. It found
his
actions to have been utterly reprehensible, calling for a severe
response. The Court imposed a sentence of five years’
imprisonment for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily
harm.
[20] Ku-Makhudu v Director of Public Prosecutions,
le Nkundla yafumanisa iwonga lombheni, owaye elipolisa, ilisolotya
elilenza
libi ngakumbi tyala. Yafumanisa ukuba izenzo zakhe
zazisonyanyeka ngokugqithisileyo, zifanelwe sisohlwayo esiqatha.
INkundla ke yamisela isohlwayo seminyaka emihlanu esentolongweni
ngokuhlasela omnye ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni.
[21] I do not read any of the cases
cited on behalf of the appellant to be supportive of the view that
custodial sentences
are not suitable for first offenders in cases
of serious assault. In some of these cases a sentence of direct
imprisonment
with a portion suspended was considered appropriate.
It must be remembered that there is no uniformity in sentencing.
While
similar cases serve as a useful guide, the particular
circumstances of the offender, the nature of the offence and
interests
of society remain the litmus test. These circumstances
may differ in each case, attracting different responses. As was
stated
in
S v Fraser
,[10]
‘it is idle exercise to try to match the colours of the case
at hand and the colours of other cases with the object
of arriving
at an appropriate sentence. Each case should be dealt with on its
own facts, connected with the crime and the
criminal…’
[21] Kuwo onke amatyala abhekise kuwo umbheni
andifundanga ndafumana nto ixhasa oluluvo lokuba izohlwayo
ezihamba nentolongo
azifanelekanga kubantu abaqalayo ukona
kwiimeko zohlaselo olubi olunobuzaza. Kwezinye zezimeko isohlwayo
sokuya ngqo entolongweni
ekukho inxenye yaso exhonyiweyo zabonwa
zizezifanelekileyo. Makukhunjulwe ke ukuba akukho mfano ncam
ekumiseleni isohlwayo.
Nangona amatyala afana namanye encedisa
ukunika isikhokelo esincedayo, iimeko ncakasana zomoni, ubunjani
balo ulwaphulo-mthetho
olo, kunye nokulungelwa koluntu ngokubanzi
zihlala ziluvavanyo oluziphumo ziyicacisayo imeko. Ezi meko
zingohluka kwityala
ngalinye, zifune ke iimpendulo kuzo
ezahlukileyo. Njengoko kwatshiwo ku-S v Fraser, ‘yinto
engasi ndawo ukuzama ukufanisa
imibala yetyala elichotshelweyo
kunye nemibala yamanye amatyala ngenjongo yokufikelela kwisohlwayo
esifanelekileyo. Imeko
nganye mayijongwe phezu kwezayo izibakala
ezinxulumene nolwaphulo-mthetho kwelotyala kunye nomaphuli-mthetho
lowo...’
[22] In the result, the following order is
made:
1. Condonation for the late filing of the
appellant’s notice of appeal is granted.
2. Condonation for the late filing of
the respondent’s heads of argument is granted.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
[22]
Isiphumo ke
ngulomyalelo ulandelayo:
1. Isicelo sombheni sokuxolelwa kokungeniswa kade
kwesaziso sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa.
2. Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa
kokungeniswa kade kwezihloko zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa.
3. Isibheno siyachithwa.
_________________________________
N P MABINDLA-BOQWANA
ACTING
JUDGE OF APPEAL
IJAJI YEZIBHENO
EBAMBELEYO
APPEARANCES
/ ABATHETHELELI:
For
Appellant/ Omele UMbheni: T N Price SC
Instructed
by/
Eyalelwa
ngaba: Nettletons, Grahamstown
Symington
& De Kock Attorneys, Bloemfontein
For
Respondent/ Omele uMphenduli: N C Turner
Instructed
by/ Eyalelwa ngaba:
Director of Public
Prosecutions, Grahamstown
Director
of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein
[1]
By
adding the words
‘
and
for which the accused is sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment
without the option of the fine.
’
Ngokufakela
la mazwi:
‘
asinikelwa
yona umtyholwa lo isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni kungaxhonywa
ndawo yaso kungekho nethuba lokuhlawula umdliwo.’
[2]
Section
276(1)
(h)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act provides
for correctional supervision
as one of the forms of punishment which a sentencing court can
impose on a convicted person. Correctional
supervision is defined in
s 1
of the
Criminal Procedure Act as
‘a community based
sentence to which a person is subject in accordance with
Chapter
V and VI of the Correctional Service Act, 1998, and the regulations
made under that Act . . .’
The
term is defined in the
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998
as ‘a
form of community corrections contemplated in Chapter VI.’
This, amongst other objectives, affords sentenced
offenders an
opportunity to serve their sentences in a non-custodial manner.
ICandelo
lama-276(1)
(h)
loMthetho
weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho libonelela ukugadwa kwabo banobutyala
benziswe imisebenzi ethile njengenye yeendlela zesohlwayo
esisenokumiselwa yinkundla eyenza loonto. Isohlwayo soku
gadwa
ngabeSebe lezoBulungisa sichazwe kwicandelo 1 loMthetho weeNkqubo
zoLwaphulo-mthetho ngokuba sisohlwayo sokusebenza phakathi
koluntu
ngokwezahluko zesi-V nesi-VI zoMthetho weeNkonzo zezoBulungisa,
1998, kunye nemigaqo eyenziwe phantsi koMthetho lowo
. . .’
Eligama lichazwe kuMthetho weeNkonzo zezoBulungisa
we-111 ka-1998 kwathiwa, ‘uhlobo oluthile lwezilungiso
ezenzelwa phakathi koluntu oluqingqwe kwiSahluko sesi-VI.’
Le,
phakathi kwezinye iinjongo-kwenza, inika aboni abanikwe isohlwayo
ithuba lokuphumeza izohlwayo zabo ngendlela ebagcina bengayi
entolongweni.
[3]
Section
276(1)
(i)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act provides
for
imprisonment
from which a convicted person may be placed under correctional
supervision in the discretion of the Commissioner
or a parole board.
ICandelo
lama-276(1)
(i)
loMthetho
weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho
libonelela ngendlela yokuvalelwa anokuthi xa esuka kuyo umntu
obefunyenwe enetyala abekwe phantsi kokugadwa ngabeSebe
ngabezoBulungisa
ngokubona kukaKhomishinari okanye ibhodi yezoxolelo.
[4]
S
v Sadler
[2000]
ZASCA 13
;
2 All SA 121
(A)
para 8.
[5]
S
v Hewitt
[2016]
ZASCA 100
;
2017 (1) SACR 309
(SCA) para 8.
[6]
See
S
v Dalindyebo
[2015]
ZASCA 144
;
[2015] 4 All SA 689
(SCA);
2016
(1) SACR 329
(SCA) para 82, where this Court held:
‘
The
lesson that cannot be emphasised enough is that persons in positions
of authority such as the appellant are obliged to act
within the
limits imposed by the law, and that no one is above the law. The
Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the
law.’
Ku-
S
v Dalindyebo
[2015] ZASCA 144
;
[2015] 4 All SA 689
(SCA)
kumhlathi 82, leNkundla yathi:
‘
Isifundo
esingenakugxininiswa ngokwaneleyo kukuba abantu abikwizikhundla
zolawulo njengombheni lo banoxanduva lokuziphatha
ngokwasemthethweni,
kwaye kungekho mntu ongaphezu komthetho.
UMgaqo-Siseko uqinisekisa impatho yabantu elinganayo phantsi
komthetho.’
[7]
S
v Matyityi
[2010]
ZASCA 127
;
[2010] 2 All SA 424
(SCA);
2011
(1) SACR 40
(SCA)
para 13.
[8]
S
v Eales
1991 (1) SACR 160 (N).
[9]
Makhudu
v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2001]
ZASCA 21
;
2001 (1) SACR 495
(SCA) para 16.
[10]
S
v Fraser
1987
(2) SA 859
(A) at 863 A-D.