'
'! .... 1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: SS50/2023
(1)
(2) OF INTEREST TO :r
P)JJ.f~Ol
DATE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
HABIB, ADAM QASIM LUCAS ACCUSED
JUDGEMENT ON SENTENCING
Coertse CJ AJ
1. The matter was postponed from Monday 27 January 2025 to Tuesday
4 March 2025 for sentencing purposes.
2. In the well-known case of Ma/gas it was said, inter a/ia, that sentencing
is a lonely and onerous task. The imposition of sentence is the
prerogative of the trial court. Having said that, the court should
seriously take into account what evidence was presented to the court
1
2
in respect of mitigating circumstances by the accused and what was
presented by the National Prosecuting Authority in respect of
aggravating circumstances. In light of the fact that the accused in this
instance was found guilty on the main count of human trafficking ,
section 4 [1] of the PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT 7 of 2013 ["the Trafficking Act'] and
7 other charges all of which were committed contravening various
sexual offences in terms of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act 32 of 2007) ["the
SORMA"] it is clear that the main count was subject to a minimum
prescribed sentence and he was duly warned about this possibility .
The court should also seriously take into account whether there are
substantial and compelling circumstances not to impose the minimum
sentence.
3. The court stands in the gap between a public, especially the braaivleis
law-chat-groups, that would like to lay their hands on people such as
the accused, or to act civilly and to sentence him according to the law.
Otherwise , we will be descending into the abyss of lawlessness.
4. I will deal with sentencing as follows: The crimes that he was found
guilty of.
4.1. Section 4 (1) of the Trafficking Act
4.2. Section 14 of the Trafficking Act
4.3. Section 13 of the Trafficking Act
4.4. Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
with heading Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious
offences.
4.5. The SORMA crimes: counts 2 -8.
2
3
4.6. S v Malgas1
4. 7. S v Matyityi2
4.8. Triad of factors: the criminal, the crime and the community
4.9. The sentence.
5. I do not intend to deal with the facts of the matter as it can be accessed
in my judgment.
The crimes he was found guilty of:
6. The accused was convicted Monday 27 January 2025 on the following
counts:
6.1. Count 1: human trafficking [contravention of section 4 (1) of
the Trafficking Act.
6.2. Count 2: facilitating and or assisting the creation and or
production of child-pornography in terms of the SORMA.
6.3. Count 3: possession of child pornography in terms of the
SORMA.
6.4. Count 4: encourage, enable, instruct, or persuade a child to
perform a sexual act [grooming} in terms of the SORMA.
6.5. Count 5: compelled self-sexual assault in terms of the
SORMA.
6.6. Count 6: compelling or causing a child to witness sexual
offences, sexual acts or self-masturbation in terms of the SORMA.
6. 7. Count 7 exposure or display of or causing exposure or display
of genital organs and or female breasts to children [flashing] in
terms of the SORMA.
1 S v Ma/gas (117/2000) (2001) ZASCA 30; (2001] 3 All SA 220 (A) (19 March 2001)
2 S v Matyityi (695/09) (201 OJ ZASCA 127 {30 September 2010)
3
4
6.8. Count 8: sexual assault in terms of the SORMA.
Section 4 (1) of the Trafficking Act
7. This was "dissected" in great detail in my judgement on the merits and
it can be accessed there. For completeness's sake, I quote section 4
(1 ):
"4 Trafficking in persons
(1) Any person who delivers, recruits, transports, transfers, harbours,
sells, exchanges, leases or receives another person within or across the
borders of the Republic, by means of
(a) a threat of harm;
(b) the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion;
(c) the abuse of vulnerability ;
(d} fraud;
(e} deception;
(f) abduction;
(g) kidnapping;
(h) the abuse of power;
(i) the direct or indirect giving or receiving of payments or benefits to obtain the
consent of a person having control or authority over another person; or
G) the direct or indirect giving or receiving of payments, compensation ,
rewards, benefits or any other advantage,
aimed at either the person or an immediate family member of that person or
any other person in close relationship to that person, for the purpose of any
form or manner of exploitation, is guilty of the offence of trafficking in persons.·
[the court's emphasis]
Section 14 of the Trafficking Act
8. Section 14 of the Trafficking Act. lists factors to be considered in
sentencing [it should be noted that sections 4 (1) and 14 are both to be
found in Chapter 2 of the Trafficking Act]:
"If a person is convicted of any offence under this Chapter, the court that imposes
the sentence must consider, but is not limited to, the following aggravating
factors-
(a) The significance of the role of the convicted person in the trafficking process;
(b) previous convictions relating to the offence of trafficking in persons or related
offences;
(c) whether the convicted person caused the victim to become addicted to the use
of a dependence-producing substance;
4
5
(d) the conditions in which the victim was kept;
(e) whether the victim was held captive for any period;
(f) whether the victim suffered abuse and the extent thereof;
(g) the physical and psychological effects the abuse had on the victim;
(h) whether the offence formed part of organised crime;
(i) whether the victim was a child;
(j) the nature of the relationship between the victim and the convicted person;
(k) the state of the victim's mental health; and
(I) whether the victim had any physical disability.11
9. It is clear from this section that not all of the aggravating circumstances
listed, are applicable on the accused and that this list is not a numerus
clausus.
10. Section 14 (a): The significance of the role of the convicted person
in the trafficking process: this is unknown to the court because the
State did not lead any evidence on this factor. As far as this court is
concerned, he was the only person cited.
11 . Section 14 (b) previous convictions relating to the offence of
trafficking in persons or related offences. There were none. The
SAPS69 have been rectified to delete any reference to rape. The
accused was not charged with rape.
12. Section 14 (c) whether the convicted person caused the victim to
become addicted to the use of a dependence-producing substance. It
is not known or disclosed.
13. Section 14 (d) the conditions in which the victim was kept. This is
not applicable. The victim was always living with her parents.
14. Section 14 (e) whether the victim was held captive for any period.
This is not applicable. The victim was always living with her parents.
15. Section 14 (f) whether the victim suffered abuse and the extent
thereof. The victim or in other words, the complainant, suffered
significant abuse and the court set it out in great detail in its judgment
on the merits.
5
6
16. Section 14 (g) the physical and psychological effects the abuse had
on the victim. Complainant's mother gave a long list of the physical and
psychological effects the abuse had on her daughter. This is covered
by the State's victim impact affidavit. The court was informed that the
entire family is still struggling to process what happened not only to the
complainant, but to her father, mother and brother.
17. Section 14 (h) whether the offence formed part of organised crime.
This is not known because the State did not lead any evidence on this
factor.
18. Section 14 (i) whether the victim was a child. Complainant is still a
child at the passing of the sentence. The complainant was 14 years old
at the time of the offences, that is the Trafficking Act and the crimes in
respect of the SORMA for the period June 2021, when they first met
on Omegle, to September 2022 when the accused was arrested. She
was born on 30 April 2007 which means that, at the time of sentencing,
the complainant is still a child in terms of the Constitution. She turns 18
on 30 April 2025.
19. Section 14 G) the nature of the relationship between the victim and
the convicted person. The accused claims that it is a "love relationship"
between him and the complainant. The mother of the complainant told
the court that she is of the opinion that it is a toxic relationship and she
also told her daughter this. The court rejects the opinion of the accused
and finds that it was an abusive relationship.
20. Section 14 (k) the state of the victim's mental health. The victim's
mother told the court that she and her husband were fearing for
complainant's life. Complainant, according to the mother, was a
changed person.
21. Section 14 (I) whether the victim had any physical disability. The
answer is no.
Section 13 of the Trafficking Act
6
7
22. Section 13 (1) (a) of the Trafficking Act under the heading: Penalties
"(1) A person convicted of an offence referred to in -(a) section 4(1) is, subject to
section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act 105 of 1997), liable to a
fine not exceeding R100 million or imprisonment. including imprisonment for life,
or such imprisonment without the option of a fine or both."
23. This is the court's mandate to impose the mandatory sentence, if,
however, the court finds any substantial and compelling circumstances
not to impose the minimum sentence then it should note it on the record
and then impose that sentence.
24. And Section 13 (2) of the Trafficking Act:
"A court that has convicted a person of an offence referred to in section 4, 5, 7 or
8(1) or any involvement in these offences as provided for in section 10, where the
offence was committed for purposes of sexual exploitation, must, subject to section
50(2)(c} of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment
Act, 2007 (Act 32 of 2007), order in the presence of that person that his or her
particulars be included in the National Register for Sex Offenders, established in
terms of section 42 of that Act, whereafter the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Act
apply with the necessary changes required by the context."
25. At paragraph 17 of the heads of argument, Mr Kruger, on behalf of
the accused, stated that the accused does not object to his particulars
be entered into the National Register for Sex Offenders.
Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 with the
heading "Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious
offences."
26. The minimum sentencing regime in terms of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997 as amended, Part 1 of Schedule 2
references trafficking in persons for sexual purposes is applicable.
The SORMA crimes counts 2 -8
27. There is a lively synergy between the SORMA and the Trafficking
Act. I venture to say that if a person is charged with contravening the
7
8
Trafficking Act, it is inevitable that the SORMA is applicable in some
way or another. Having stated this, there is also a synergy between
these two statutes and section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
105 of 1997 as amended .
28. Counts 2 -8 are all in terms of the SORMA. I have dealt extensively
with these counts in the judgment on the merits and I do not intend to
restate it herein except where it is really necessary. The accused
pleaded guilty to: count 2 [facilitating and or assisting the creation and
or production of child-pornography,]; count 3 [possession of child
pornography] ; count 6 [compelling or causing children to witness
sexual offences, sexual acts or self-masturbation] ; count 7 [exposure
or display of or causing exposure or display of genital organs, anus or
female breasts to children flashing) & count 8 [sexual assault]. The
remaining counts, he pleaded not guilty to.
THE MALGAS-case
29. I am reminded of the well-known case of Ma/gas that gives clear and
serious guidelines to trial courts and its approach to section 51 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 with the heading
Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious offences .
There is indeed a built-in discretion in section 51 and I find it in the
words that if there are "... substantial and compelling circumstances which
justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than the sentence prescribed in those
subsections, it shall enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings
and must thereupon impose such lesser sentence ... ''
30. In the court's mind substantial and compelling circumstances are
the markers or the indicators for the court to follow to extend mercy to
the accused. In religious language, mercy is equated to grace. Grace
8
9
is something extended to a person who does not deserve anything but
the severest action. I am confronted between maudlin sympathy and a
harsh execution of the minimum sentencing regime.
31 . What are substantial and compelling circumstances? The court in
the Ma/gas-case indicated what it is not. At page 15: " ... flimsy reasons
which could not withstand scrutiny. Speculative hypotheses favourable to the
offender, maudlin sympathy, aversion to imprisoning first offenders, personal
doubts as to the efficacy of the policy implicit in the amending legislation , and like
considerations were equally obviously not intended to qualify as substantial and
compelling circumstances .... I can see no warrant for deducing that the legislature
intended a court to exclude from consideration , ante omnia as it were, any or all of
the many factors traditionally and rightly taken into account by courts when
sentencing offenders . What they are apt to convey, is that the ultimate cumulative
impact of those circumstances must be such as to justify a departure."
32. At para 10 "... a trial court will consider the particular circumstances of the
case in the light of the well-known triad of factors relevant to sentence and impose
what it considers."
33. It is trite that the court is confronted with a discretionary minimum
sentence in this respect but, fortunately it is tempered with mercy. I find
mercy in the words that if there are substantial and compelling
circumstances, I should note those on the record and promptly proceed
to sentence accordingly.
34. I will list the substantial and compelling circumstances that I found
that do exist in this case.
THE Matyityi-case
9
10
35. In the State v MatyityP it was said "Had more relevant evidence been
placed before the court as to: the prevalence of these types of offences; the public
desire for protection from the kind of wanton criminality encountered here; the
public interest in suitably fair, just and balanced punishment ; and the harm suffered
by Ms KD and those who survive Mr MF, the traditional triad of the crime, the
criminal and the interests of society would have been better served."
36. At para 13 it was said in Matyityi-case that: "Many accused persons
might well regret their conduct but that does not without more translate to genuine
remorse. Remorse is a gnawing pain of conscience for the plight of another ....
Whether the offender is sincerely remorseful and not simply feeling sorry for
himself or herself at having been caught is a factual question. It is to the
surrounding actions of the accused rather than what he says in court that one
should rather look. In order for the remorse to be a valid consideration, the
penitence must be sincere and the accused must take the court fully into his or her
confidence ."
37. In Matyityi at para 14 the SCA discusses the age of an accused. It
is trite between the State and the defence that the accused is an adult
male with vast sexual experience -that he admitted to pertinent
questions by the State Advocate during her cross-examination . The
complainant was a girl child of 14, 15 years whom never even had a
boyfriend and not even attending her school friend's parties. The two
factors are also in the scales to consider an appropriate sentence. His
chronological age belies his vast sexual experience.
38. I will now turn to the factors that were presented to the court in
respect of the criminal, the crimes and the community. These factors
were encapsulated in the sworn statements by the accused in respect
3 (695/09) (2010) ZASCA 127 {30 September 2010)
10
11
of extenuating circumstances and in the sworn statement presented by
the NPA in respect of aggravating circumstances.
The triad of factors: the criminal, the crime and the community
39. The court received copies of various documents for the defence in
respect of sentencing:
39.1. An affidavit executed by the accused at the Johannesburg
Correctional Facility on 6 February 2025.
39.2. An affidavit executed by his six siblings before Paramjit Kaur
Deol Solicitor & Notary Public and Commissioner for Oaths at West
Midlands, UK and
39.3. Accused's parents also executed an affidavit before the same
person mentioned above.
40. The court read these affidavits. It is clear that the accused presents
a complete turnaround from the hardnosed stance he presented during
the trial and more so during the strenuous cross-examination by the
State Advocate. It is however, regrettable that when he had the golden
opportunity since day one in the court which is early 2024, to make a
clean breast of it, he failed to do it. He had one long continuous
opportunity during cross-examination to once again, come clean. Did
he do so? No, not at all. He justified his actions with all sorts of excuses.
He even threatened complainant's parents and he was scathing about
complainant's grandmother who was terminally ill.
41 . I am of the view that now that accused expressed his remorse and
his say so that he wants to make amends, it should be taken into
account. His remorse flies in the face of his parents affidavit and
11
12
especially in the face of his six siblings who is still blaming the
complainant. The very first day I saw accused in court, I saw a human
being in front of me. He is not a statistic.
42. His siblings kept on blaming complainant, as was the accused, for
their brother's circumstances. They pretended to know better what the
relationsh ip was between complainant and her family; they are at
loggerheads with complainant's mother who gave very graphic
evidence about the dramatic changes in complainant since the day
she, complainant, met the accused.
43. His parents' affidavit is exactly how parents will react in these
circumstances : emotionally charged. The court is of the view that this
affidavit, read with the affidavit by his siblings, are the ultimate
expression of maudlin sympathy: it is overly emotional and somewhat
insincere or maybe somewhat manipulative. It seems to the court as if
his siblings are trying to impress the court how they cared for the
complainant. They have not even seen her in the flesh.
44. Before I move onto the next aspect, I want to address the affidavits
that were executed in the UK and the copies that were presented to the
court in Johannesburg. I don't know where the originals are. What
happened here is exactly what Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Court
is all about. The title of Rule 63 reads: "Authentication of Documents
Executed Outside the Republic for Use Within the Republic." In essence these
rules require that documents, such as affidavits that were executed
outside the RSA, be authenticated in a prescribed way. These affidavits
submitted on behalf of the accused do not comply with Rule 63 (3). It
lacks the required seal of office of certain prescribed officers and their
signatures. Is it fatal for the validity of these two affidavits? I do not
think so. Rule 63 (4) states as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this rule
contained , any court of law or public office may accept as sufficiently authenticated
any document which is shown to the satisfaction of such court or the officer in
charge of such public office, to have been actually signed by the person purporting
12
13
to have signed such document." I am therefore satisfied that these two sets
of affidavits are duly authorised and authenticated and these are
accepted as such.
45. On page 8 of the heads of argument for the accused, the attorney
puts forward this argument: "He did not, it seems, form the intent to truly harm
anyone else or to satisfy a pattern of sexuality. He truly did not want to, through
criminal actions, harm "complainant" His actions simply took over, affecting, in my
opinion his moral blameworthiness." This is fallacious reasoning for the
following reasons:
45.1. The big bundle of WhatsApp messages militates against it,
45.2. He falsely created Exhibit L: it is the document that the
complainant disputed the authenticity of;
45.3. All the other documentation that was handed in by the State
and
45.4. his own evidence under oath and his replies to the strenuous
cross-examination by the State Advocte
45.5. linked to his signed statement in mitigation of sentence.
All of the above militate undisputedly to his criminal intent.
46. The trial court was clear about these matters; the State proved his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Exhibit L was hotly contested by able
argument by both the defence and the State, and much time was spent
on it during the trial just to be told by Mr Kruger that his instructions are
not to proceed with the application. A similar situation arose in the
Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of Minister of Home Affairs v
Ali4: "Although the retrospectiv ity argument was not pursued before us, in view of
the fact that it was raised in the heads of argument and debated at length before
the high court I think it is necessary to say something about the argument briefly."
The way I read that judgment of the SCA is that the SCA was of the
view that since it was in the heads of argument, and since it was argued
at length, the court [SCA] must now pronounce on it. When I was sitting
as the trial court, I pronounced upon it and now, in light of this
argument, I must pronounce again on it: this argument is rejected in its
totality.
4 (1289/17} [2018] ZASCA 169 (30 November 2018) Al paragraph (21),
13
14
4 7. On page 16 ad paragraph 9 of the Accused's heads of argument the
relationship between accused and complainant is presented as a "true
love story." If this is love, the court will eat his hat as the proverb is
saying. It was abusive to the extreme as was set out in great length
during the judgment on the merits and I need not state it again. A true
lover does not threaten to kill the other lover's parents; a true lover does
not teach a child to practice self-sexual assault; a true lover does not
make light of the other lover's grandmother who was terminally ill. The
worst that happened to the complainant, physically that is, is the
touching of her breast -that was the argument presented to the court
on behalf of the accused. If it stopped there, that might have been
correct; it did not stop there: the court dealt with the entire scenario of
the so-called "love relationship" that complainant's mother said it was
a toxic relationship.
48. At para 9.4 of the defence's heads of argument it is stated boldly
that: "No violence was committed; no loss of life or permanent long-term results
have followed." The only factual point in this paragraph that is correct is
that no loss of life followed. It is clear from the victim impact affidavit of
complainant's mother that the long-term impact is still felt in the
household and her family. To state that no violence was committed
beggars' belief -the entire ordeal is not only psychological but also
physical. Need I to repeat what the physical consequences where in
the complainant's life? Who was the perpetrator? The accused was the
criminal doing it.
49. The triad of factors relevant to sentencing, with due regard to the
minimum sentencing regime are the criminal, the community and the
crime.
50. The factors in respect of the criminal. There is an age difference of
10 years between the accused being born on 21 October 1997, and
the complainant born on 30 April 2007. He had, by his own admission
under cross-examination by the State Advocate, stated that he is an
adult male of 24 years when he met complainant and had, at that stage
already, had vast sexual experience. Complainant , in contradistinction,
14
15
and according to her mother, had at 14 years never even attended
school parties, she was an innocent young girl who was enjoying life.
51. The accused displayed no remorse whatever during the trial5 and
especially during the strenuous cross-examination by the State
Advocate. He has, however, made an about turn and has displayed
remorse.
52. I want to re-iterate that from the very first day I saw the accused in
court, I saw a human being. It should be clear by now that I look at the
accused not as a statistic. This is my approach in respect of me
sentencing him. I cannot disregard the filth that he offered in his own
words to be jest, jokes, part and parcel of his dark humour, I do not
disregard the litany of profanities, the documentation that were handed
in and the effect it had on complainant, her family, the community and
on the court to such an extent that Adv Ryan lamented the filth that
oozed out of the documentation that were handed in as exhibits. I must
also have regard what the effect of the sentences will have on the
accused, his immediate family and his community in the UK. This was
disclosed in the signed documents of his siblings and his parents.
53. Although he was very explicit and demanding to have the most
brutal sex with a child, it did not materialise. It did not materialise , not
to his "credit" but to the credit of concerned parents and the quick and
effective action of the SAPS. That is in this instance really to the credit
of the SAPS and parenting: Can I take this as compelling and
substantial circumstances not to impose the minimum sentence of life
imprisonment? In light of the numerous instances where these courts,
inclusive of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the ConCourt stated
clearly and unequivocally that sentencing lies squarely in the domain
of the trial court, I will take the opportunity to extend mercy in tangible
form to the accused. He is an adult man, only in his late twenties and
to remove from him from society for life, seems to me to be extremely
harsh.
5 Stale v Matyityi (695/s9) [2010) ZASCA 127 (30 September 2010) at para 9
15
16
54. He was rather critical about our country's human trafficking laws. I
do not share his sentiments. I will not hold it against him, as I am of the
view that he is an unsettled, embittered and displaced human being in
search of serious help and assistance.
55. I find the following to be substantial and compelling circumstances
not to impose the discretionary minimum sentence in respect of count
1 : human trafficking:
55.1. The accused and the complainant had only one physical
contact and that was tightly controlled. I am aware that this specific
instance, was not due to any of his doings or any of his efforts, but
solely by the diligence of her parents and yet I take this into account
in his favour.
55.2. The complainant was not raped
55.3. She was not abducted
55.4. She was not physically harmed
55.5. She was not introduced to drugs
55.6. She was not harboured as she continued living with her
parents.
55. 7. What were the physical and psychological effects of the abuse
on the victim? That was spelt out in the victim impact affidavit.
55.8. I don't know whether he was part of an international syndicate
of human traffickers . I take this into account in his favour and if I err
then I err in his favour.
55.9. He is a first offender and apparently also in the UK [this was
disclosed by the State Advocate from the Bar).
55.10. With some assistance from psychologists , psychiatrists and
life coaches he might be rehabilitated. This is his stated goals as
he described so vividly in his signed statement in respect of
mitigation of sentence.
56. His time waiting trial is also taken into consideration in respect of the
sentences I am about to pass in respect of the crimes in terms of the
SORMA. He was arrested on 22 September 2022. It means that he
was in custody awaiting trial since then; he was at a rough estimate 2
years and 3 months in custody.
16
17
r 57. I will also order that his particulars be entered into the Sexual
register. Section 13 (2) register of sexual offenders Trafficking Act &
Section 50 SORMA.
The sentence:
58. Count 1: human trafficking [contravention of section 4 (1) of the
Trafficking Act: 10 years imprisonment.
59. Counf 2: facilitating and or assisting the creation and or production
of child-pornography [the SORMA]: 5 years. In respect of this specific
count and the sentence, I order that the accused period awaiting trial
prisoner of 2 years and 3 months be taken into consideration as
t follows:
t 59. 1. The effective sentence then is 2 years and 9 months
imprisonment.
60. Count 3: possession of child pornography [the SORMA]: 4 years
imprisonment.
61. Count 4: encourage , enable, instruct, or persuade a child to perform
a sexual act [grooming] [the SORMA]: 5 years imprisonment.
62. Count 5: compelled self-sexual assault [the SORMA]: 4 years
imprisonment.
63. Count 6: compelling or causing a child to witness sexual offences,
sexual acts or self-masturbation [the SORMA]: 5 years imprisonment.
64. Count 7 exposure or display of or causing exposure or display of
genital organs and or female breasts to children [flashing] [the
SORMA]: 4 years imprisonment.
65. Count 8: sexual assault [the SORMA]: 5 years imprisonme
~
18
66. I order that the sentences in respect of counts 2 -8 run concurrently
with the sentence in respect of count 1
67. I order that his full particulars be entered into the National Register
for Sex Offenders in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Trafficking Act and
in terms of section 50(2)(c) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act 32 of 2007).
• der that the accused is unfit to possess a firearm in terms of
o 1 3 of he Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.
18
For the State: Advocate C Ryan NPA
For the Accused: Mr J Kruger instructed
by Botha Du Plessis & Kruger
Attorneys Rosebank 19
19