1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC72/2023
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
REVISED: NO
Date: 25 October 2024
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
GERALD TSHEPO MAAGA
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
M Munzhelele J
[1] Accused was convicted of the following offenses:
Count 1, 3, 7, and 11: Contravention of section 4(1) of the Prevention and
Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act1, read with the provisions of section
51(1) schedule 2 Part I of Act2.
Count 4, 5, and 8: Robbery with aggravating circumstances as contemplated in
1 7 of 2013
2 105 of 1997
2
section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 3, read with section 51(2) and Schedule 2,
Part II of Act 105 of 1997.
Count 2: Theft as a competent verdict to robbery.
Count 6: Extortion.
Count 9: Contravention of section 4(1)(e) of the Firearms Control Act 4, read with
sections 1, 120(10A), and 121 of Act.
Count 10: Contravention of section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act5.
Count 12: Contravention of section 7(a) of Act6.
Count 13: Attempted contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual
Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act
7.
[2] The accused, in this sentencing trial, is represented by Advocate
Kgakgara of Legal Aid, while the state is represented by Advocate Roos. The
state was ready to proceed, but the accused had been causing delays
throughout. The matter eventually proceeded. The accused did not testify or
call any witnesses, but the defense counsel presented the accused's personal
circumstances from the bar. The state also did not call any witnesses but
submitted the victim impact statements as exhibits "GG1-GG4". Ona prior
occasion, the court had ordered that a pre- sentence report from the probation
officer should be obtained. It was presented to court by Mr. Mbatha, and handed
in as evidence and as exhibit "FF". The pre- sentence report includes a
recommendation by the probation officer that the accused be sentenced to
imprisonment for the offenses for which he was convicted.
3 51 of 1977
4 60 of 2000
5 62 of 1955
6 32 of 2008
7 32 of 2007
3
[3] Before passing sentence, section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977, requires the trial court to obtain sufficient information to enable it to impose
an appropriate and just sentence. The purpose is to ensure that the judge is well -
informed about the relevant facts of the case, the circumstances of the accused,
and any other factors that may affect sentencing. In S v Samue ls8 Ponnan JA
cited with approval the following paragraph from S v Siebert9:
'Sentencing is a judicial function sui generis. It should not be governed
by considerations based on notions akin to onus of proof. In this field of
law, public interest requires the court to play a more active, inquisitorial
role. The accused should not be sentenced unless and until all the facts
and circumstances necessary for the responsible exercise of such
discretion have been placed before the court.'
[4] Reference is made to the following statement by Mpati JA in
Rammoko v Director of Public Prosecutions10:
'Life imprisonment is the heaviest sentence a person can be legally
obliged to serve. Accordingly, where s 51(1) applies, an accused must
not be subjected to the risk that substantial and compelling
circumstances are, on inadequate evidence, held to be absent'.
[5] Sentencing the accused is within the discretion of the trial court. In S v
Karan 11 where Davis AJ (Erasmus J concurring) relied on the following
statements by Terblanche A Guide to Sent encing in South Africa 3 Edition (2016)
at 15:
'That the power to impose a sentence on a convicted offender is the
domain of the courts, the judicial authority in South Africa, is widely
8 2011 (1) SACR 9 (SCA) at [8]
9 1998 (1) SACR 554 (SCA) 558j-559a
10 2003 (1) SACR 200 (SCA) at [13]
11 2019 (2) SACR 334 (WCC) at [21]
4
accepted. This principle is so deeply imbedded in our common law that
it is difficult to find any source containing a statement to this effect. '
[6] The personal circumstances of the accused are as follows: He is 46
years old, divorced, and the father of a 10-year-old child who resides with the
child's mother. The mother is unemployed, and prior to his arrest, the accused
maintained the child by contributing six thousand rand (R6 000, 00) per month,
excluding the costs of extramural activities. Since his arrest, the mother has
been receiving a child support grant. The accused completed his matric and,
at the time of his arrest, was in his fourth year of studying towards an LLB
degree with UNISA . He engaged in business ventures and chicken farming,
employing two people at his chicken farm. His businesses generated an income
of twenty-thousand rand (R20 000, 00) per month. He is a first-time offender and
has been an awaiting trial prisoner for five (5) years, having been arrested on 6
July 2019. The accused is also a karate instructor, training three hundred (300)
children in Pretoria, and is a member of the National Executive Council of
Karate. He has represented South African karate in Thailand and Hungary .
Furthermore, he is the guardian of his grandmother, who was cared for by two
employees, each earning three thousand five hundred rand (R3 500, 00) per
month. During the sentencing proceedings, the accused received information
that both his mother and grandmother had passed away.
[7] The victim impact statement of J […] M[…], marked as Exhibit "GG1",
contains the following information provided under oath: She informed the
court, in her affidavit , that she has been unable to sleep as she constantly
thinks about the incident. She was unable to work due to her fear that the
ordeal might repeat itself, which caused her financial hardship. She has been
living in fear as a result of the trauma she experienced.
living in fear as a result of the trauma she experienced.
[8] The victim impact statement of L[ …] M[…]1, marked as Exhibit "GG2",
contains the following information provided under oath: She stated that due to
flashbacks and fear of the accused, she was unable to sleep properly . Her fear
was so severe that she relocated to Bushbuckridge. She is no longer employed
5
and is suffering financially as a result.
[9] The victim impact statement of N […] M[…]2, marked as exhibit "GG3 "
contains the following information provided under oath: she stated in her affidavit
that she feels scared for her life. As a result of the incident, she now hates her job
and herself. She experiences body tremors and headaches after the ordeal, and
she is no longer working.
[10] The victim, L[… M[...]3, stated under oath on exhibit "GG4" that she
struggled to sleep and function effectively for months after the incident. She
has since stopped working and is now selling clothes , atchar, and curtains in
her hometown in the Free State. To cope with the trauma, she has resorted to
consuming alcohol.
[11] The pre-sentence report exhibit " FF" compiled by Mr. Mbatha, a
probation officer , contains a recommendation that the accused should be
sentenced to imprisonment, taking into consideration that he has been convicted
of human trafficking and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
[12] The background of these offenses of trafficking in persons is as
follows: All five victims were sex workers, a vulnerable group prone to
exploitation and abuse . The accused accessed them through their
advertisements on platforms such as Ads Africa, Red Velvet, Escort South
Africa, and Sex Traders, which were published online. He contacted them by
phone, arranging meetings under the pretense of purchasing sexual services
for the night at a hotel. He booked each victim on different dates, collecting them
in his Mazda sedan under the guise of transporting them to the hotel. However,
instead of taking them to the hotel, he transported them to a location of his
choosing. Once at the location, the accused produced a firearm (later
discovered to be a toy pistol) and used it to intimidate the victims, forcing them
to submit to sexual intercourse. Afterwards , he robbed them at gunpoint,
taking their phones and, in some instances, extorting money. One of the
taking their phones and, in some instances, extorting money. One of the
victims, Mrs. M[...]2, was extorted for money. The accused did not pay for the
6
services he had falsely solicited. After robbing the victims of their belongings,
he either left them at the scene or transported them to an unfamiliar location
before driving away. These incidents occurred between 12 June 2019 and 5 July
2019, when the accused was arrested. The Mazda sedan was subsequently
discovered to be a stolen vehicle.
[13] Counsel for the defense argued that there are substantial and compelling
circumstances warranting a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences .
He submitted that these circumstances including the fact that the accused is a
first-time offender, has been an awaiting trial prisoner, and was a guardian to his
grandmother, who passed away on 23 October 2024. The defense counsel
further contended that the charges against the accused should be treated as one
for sentencing purposes , to avoid an injustice. He argued that substantial and
compelling circumstances need not be exceptional and that the personal
circumstances of the accused may also be regarded as substantial and
compelling. Additionally, he submitted that even in cases where there are no
substantial and compelling circumstances, the court has discretion to deviate from
the minimum sentence if imposing it would result in an unjust outcome
[14] The state argued that the following circumstances should be
taken into consideration when sentencing the accused. Section 14 of the
Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2013 (Act No. 7 of 2013)
which provides 12 factors to be considered in sentencing as follows: -
"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. In this regard, the accused was the main
character. He is the one who picked the ladies up. He is the one
who abused them sexually and emotionally. He lured the
who abused them sexually and emotionally. He lured the
complainants. He robbed the complainants at gun point, he
7
extorts the money from the complainant and harass her with
messages.
(b) Previous convictions relating to the offense of trafficking
persons or related crimes.
Accused is a first offender
(c) Whether the convicted person caused the victim to
become addicted to the use of a dependence-producing
substance. The accused forced some of the accused to smoke
dagga and or drugs but there is no evidence that they became
addicted to it.
(d) The conditions in which the victim was kept. Mrs M[...]3 was
handcuffed, tied on the neck with the headrest of the car. She was
again subjected to humiliation when she was told to fondle herself
while a video was taken by the accused. Forced to drink water with
blood. No proper toilet was shown to her. Some other ladies were
subjected to sex in the car instead of the hotel as promised. Mrs
Sithole was forced to smoke drugs.
(e) Whether the victim was held captive for any period. The
evidence is clear that complainants were held for some time
against their will and one Mrs Sithole was kept for the whole night
and was found by the police in the morning inside accused's car
the day that accused was arrested.
(f) Whether the victim suffered abuse or the extent thereof
The complainants were abused emotionally and physically. Mrs
M[...]3 was even made to have sex with other man who came in
the house as a punishment by the accused. In the morning she
was dumped at the road which is surrounded by forest at a place
8
unknown to her. When the police found her she did not even
have shoes and was on a gown only.
(g) The physical and psychological effect the abuse had on the
victims. The complainants are suffering from insomnia. Some have
relocated from Pretoria to their home town, Mrs M[...]3 went back
to Orange Free State which is her home province and Mrs M[...]1
went returned to Bushbuckridge.
(h) Whether the offense formed part of organized crime. There
was no evidence to this effect.
(i) Whether the victim was a child, the complainants are all
adults
(j) The nature of the relationship between the victim and the
convicted person. There is no relationship between the accused
and the complainant; they were, in fact, strangers to each other.
(k) The state of the victim's mental health. No evidence was
provided.
(I) Whether the victim had any physical disability, there is no
one who had physical disability."
[15] The state further submitted that the accused should be sentenced in
accordance with the minimum sentences prescribed for the charges . The state
contended that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate and that the accused
should also be declared unfit to possess a firearm.
[16] The court must balance the accused's personal circumstances with the
interests of the victims and society. Following this , the court must consider
whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from
9
the minimum sentences prescribed for contraventions of section 4(1) of the
Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act 7 of 2013
(trafficking), and for robbery with aggravating circumstances in terms of section
51(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. In S v
Malgas 12 , it was held that under these statutes , the court must impose
minimum sentences unless "substantial and compelling circumstances" justify
a lesser sentence. This framework was designed to ensure that serious
offenses are met with appropriately severe punishments while still allowing
judicial discretion when justified by case specifics. Courts are required to
impose sentences with the understanding that the legislature has mandated
life imprisonment (or the specific prescribed period of imprisonment) as the
standard sentence for listed crimes under specified conditions. Unless there
are genuinely compelling reasons to deviate, these crimes should elicit a
severe, standardized, and consistent response from the courts.
Personal Circumstances of the Accused:
[17] The personal circumstances of the accused are relevant in assessing
whether there are grounds to depart from the minimum sentence.
1. Age and family background: The accused is 46 years old ,
divorced, and has a 10-year-old child who is dependent on him. He had
been supporting his child with R6 ,000 per month prior to his arrest. His
ex-wife, who now l ooks after the child, is unemployed, and they are
receiving a child support grant in his absence.
2. Education and employment: At the time of his arrest , the accused
was in his final year of studying towards an LLB degree, showing that he
had the potent ial to contribute meaningfully to society . He also owned a
chicken farm and employed two people, generating an income of R20, 000
per month. His role as a business owner and as a guardian of his
grandmother highlights his ability to be a productive member of society.
12 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA)
10
3. Community involvement: The accused was actively involved in
the community, serving as a karate instructor to 300 children in Pretoria.
He also represented South Africa internationally in karate. This speaks to
his character outside of the criminal activities , showing that he was once a
law-abiding and contributing member of society.
4. Time spent in custody : He has been in custody for five years
awaiting trial , which can be seen as a mitigating factor. Courts
sometimes view long periods of pre- trial detention as part of the
punishment.
5. Grief and loss: The accused lost both his mother and
grandmother while awaiting trial, which could be seen as an additional
emotional burden.
The Nature of the Offenses:
[18] While the accused's personal circumstances are compelling, the
nature and seriousness of the offenses weigh heavily against him:
Human Trafficking:
Human trafficking is one of the most serious offenses under South
African law. It involves the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable
individuals. In this case, the victims were sex workers, a particularly
vulnerable group susceptible to coercion and exploitation. The accused
lured these women under false pretenses, sexually assaulted them, and
robbed them.
The law recognizes human trafficking as an especially heinous crime
because it strips individuals of their autonomy and subjects them to
physical and psychological abuse . The victims in this case were subjected
11
to a range of degrading and abusive treatment , including being forced to
perform sexual acts and being robbed.
Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances:
Robbery with aggravating circumstances is defined by the Criminal
Procedure Act as robbery that involves the use of a weapon or the infliction
of grievous bodily harm. In this case, the accused used a toy gun, but the
victims b elieved it to be real , which induced fear and trauma. The
emotional impact of believing they were facing imminent death or serious
harm is significant.
The victims were robbed of their possessions, including their phones ,
and some were extorted for additional money. The repeated nature of the
offenses (multiple v ictims over a short period) shows a pattern of
premeditated and opportunistic criminal behavior.
Victim Impact:
[19] Emotional and psychological harm : The vict im impact statements
demonstrate the profound emotional harm cau sed by the accused's actions. The
victims reported insomnia, fear, flashbacks, and relocation due to the trauma of
the events . Some have lost their jobs or relocated due to fear of the accused,
showing the long-term damage inflicted on them.
1. Physical abuse: The victims were subjected to physical abuse and
degrading treatment. For example, one victim was handcuffed, tied, and
forced to engage in humiliating acts, while another was forced to take
drugs.
2. Vulnerability of the victims: The victims, as sex workers, were
particularly vulnerable to exploitation. This vulnerability was exploited
by the accused, who used their trust to lure them into dangerous
12
situations. South African law places particular emphasis on protecting
vulnerable groups , and this is a significant aggravating factor in the
sentencing process.
Comparison with the Triad:
[20] The triad of sentencing includes the gravity of the offense, the interest
of society, and the personal circumstances of the offender.
1. Seriousness of the Offenses: The accused was convicted of serious
offenses, including human trafficking, robbery with aggravating
circumstances, extortion, possession of a toy gun, and contravention of
section 36 for possession of suspected stolen property , specifically a
Mazda sedan, among other charges. These crimes involved coercion,
physical abuse, and psychological trauma inflicted on vulnerable sex
workers who were deceived, violated, and robbed. The impact on the
victims was severe , as detailed in their victim impact statements, which
describe substantial emotional and psychological harm , including
insomnia, trauma, relocation due to fear, and inability to work.
2. Interests of Society: In S v Swart13;
In our law retribution and deterrence are proper purposes of punishment
and they must be accorded due weight in any sentence that is imposed.
Each of the elements of punishment is not required to be accorded
equal weight, but instead proper weight must be accorded to each
according to the circumstances. Serious crimes will usually require that
retribution and deterrence should come to the fore and that rehabilitation
of the offender will consequently play a smaller role. Moreover, as
pointed out in S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) where the court finds
that it is not bound to impose a prescribed sentence 'the sentence to be
imposed in lieu of the prescribed sentence should be assessed paying due
13 2004 (2) SACR 370 (SCA)
13
regard to the bench mark which the legislator provided'. Society has a
strong interest in deterring human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and
violent crime, particularly when vulnerable groups are targeted in this
case the sex workers. The offenses committed by the accused are
socially egregious and violate fundamental human rights especially
section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, No. 108
of 1996 which provides that "Everyone has inherent dignity and the right
to have their dignity respected and protected". A strong message must
be sent to potential offenders that such actions will not be tolerated,
which justifies the imposition of minimum sentences under normal
circumstances. Trafficking and violent robbery undermine public safety.
In S v Kruger14 Shongwe JA (Harms AP and Plaskett AJA concurring)
confirmed that '[p]punishing a convicted person should not be likened to
revenge. It must have all the elements of and purposes of punishment,
prevention, retribution, individual and general deterrence and
rehabilitation'.
[21] Personal Circumstances of the Accused: The accused' s circumstances,
though compelling, are typical for sentencing considerations. In the case of S v
Van Wyk15 and S v Voges16, and S v ABT17 it has been said that:
"Being a first offender does not mean that such effect should override
all the other principles to be considered during the sentencing process.
First time offenders are therefore not entitled to non-custodial sentences
merely because they are first offenders. So the value of being a first
offender should be considered by the trial Court against the other factors
under consideration during the sentencing process."
[22] His status as a first -offender, his contributions to his family and
community, his long period of pre- trial detention, and the potential for
14 2012 (1) SACR 369 (SCA)
15 1997 (1) SACR 345 (T) 3669-h
16 1975 (3) SA 88 (AD) 890E
17 1975 (2) SA 214 (AD) 219H
14
rehabilitation suggest some grounds for leniency . However, his actions were
premeditated, calculated, and persistent over a period of time, which may
diminish the weight of these mitigating factors . In S v Vilakazi 18 Nugent JA said
that in cases of serious crimes as these, the personal circumstances of the
offenders by themselves will necessarily recede into the background. Once it
becomes clear that the crime is deserving of a substantial period of imprisonment.
The question whether the accused is married or single, whether he has two
children or three, whether he is in employment are themselves largely immaterial
to what the period should be and those seems to be the kind of flimsy reasons , or
flimsy grounds that Malgas ' case said should be avoided. But they are
nonetheless relevant in other respect. A material consideration is whether the
accused can be expected to offend again. While that can never be confidently
predicted, his circumstances might assist in making at least some assessment.
Accused's actions during the commission of these crimes show a disregard for
the law and the rights of others.
Analysis of Substantial and Compelling Circumstances:
[23] The law requires the court to consider whether there are
substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed
minimum sentences. Here, the accused's personal circumstances and his
potential for rehabilitation may suggest that a non-life sentence could be
appropriate. However, the premeditated nature of his offenses, the prolonged
impact on multiple victims , and the fact that these were not i solated incidents
weigh heavily against a significant departure from the prescribed sentences.
Human Trafficking (Count 1, 3, 7, and 11): The accused played a central role in
exploiting vulnerable women, inflicting both physical and emotional harm. In S v
Qamata19;
"An appropriate sentence actually means a sentence in accordance
with the blameworthiness of every individual offender."
with the blameworthiness of every individual offender."
18 2009(1) SACR 552 (SCA) at para 58
19 1997 (1) SACR 479 (E) 483a
15
[24] The aggravating factors include the calculated method in which he lured
the victims, used coercion, and humiliated them. The absence of any evidence
suggesting organized crime may mitigate slightly , but the gravity of the harm
inflicted and the vulnerable status of the victims suggest that no substantial and
compelling circumstances exist to justify deviation from the minimum sentence for
trafficking.
[25] Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances (Count 4, 5, and 8): The
robberies were accompanied by the use of a weapon, creating fear and
traumatizing the victims. Although the firearm was later revealed to be a toy pistol,
the victims believed it to be real , which significantly contributed to their trauma.
Again, the seriousness, premeditated, and repeated nature of the offenses , along
with the significant harm inflicted on the victims and the societal need for
deterrence, weigh against the accused in all these charges. Despite the
accused's personal circumstances, the gravity of these offenses outweighs any
mitigating factors. Accordingly, I find no substantial and compelling circumstances
to justify a deviation from the prescribed sentences.
[26] Theft (Count 2) , Extortion (Count 6), and Other Counts : These lesser
offenses are tied into the larger pattern of criminal behavior. The extortion, for
example, involved threatening victims for financial gain, compounding the
psychological harm already inflicted. While these counts on their own might not
justify harsh sentences, they form part of the larger scheme of exploitation and
abuse. In S v Moke la 20 the court noted that an order that sentences run
concurrently is called for where the evidence shows that the relevant offences are
'inextricably linked in terms of the locality, time, protagonists and, importantly, the
fact that they were committed with one common intent'. Again in S v
Sekwat,21, where Makgoba J wrote as follows:
'It is a salutary practice that if an accused is sentenced in respect of two or
'It is a salutary practice that if an accused is sentenced in respect of two or
20 2012 (1) SACR 431 (SCA) at [11]
21 (unreported, GP case no A445/2015, 14 September 2016) at [13]
16
more related offences, sentencing court should have regard to the cumulative
effect of the sentences imposed in order to ensure that the total sentence is
not disproportionate to the accused' s blameworthiness in relation to the
offences in respect of which the accused has to be sentenced."
Conclusion:
[27] While the accused' s personal circumstances , including his first -offender
status, his five-year pre-trial detention, and his potential for rehabilitation, are
factors the court has considered, they do not, in my view, amount to substantial
and compelling circumstances that would justify deviating from the minimum
sentences for the trafficking and robbery counts. The premeditated nature of
the crimes, the prolonged emotional and psychological trauma suffered by the
victims, and the societal interest in deterring such offenses strongly suggest
that the minimum sentences should be imposed. Thus, the court finds that no
substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify a departure from the
minimum sentences for the trafficking and robbery counts.
[28] Accordingly, the following sentence is deemed appropriate.
1. Count 1, 3, 7, and 11(trafficking) accused is sentenced to life
imprisonment on each.
2. Count 4, 5, and 8: (robbery with aggravating circumstances)
accused is sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on each count.
3. Count 2: (Theft as a competent verdict) accused is sentenced to
3 years' imprisonment.
4. Count 6: (Extortion) accused is sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.
5. Count 9: (contravention of section 4(1)(e) of the Firearms Control
Act) accused is sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.
17
6. Count 10: (Contravention of section 36 of the General Law
Amendment Act) accused is sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.
7. Count 12: (Contravention of section 7(a) of Act 32 of 2008) accused
is sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.
8. Count 13: (Attempted contravention of section 3) accused is
sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.
In terms of Section 280(2) Act 51 of 1977 the Court directs that the sentences
imposed in respect of all these counts shall run concurrently with the sentence of
life imprisonment.
[29] Ancillary orders
1. In terms of Section 103 (1) of firearms control act 60 of 2000 the
court makes no order. This means accused is deemed unfit to possess
a firearm.
2. In terms of section 103 (4) of firearms controls act 60 of 2000. The
court makes an order of search and seizure of accused' s premises for
firearms, ammunitions licenses and or competency certificate.
3. In terms of section 299A (1) of Act 51 of 1977 the court informs
the complainants that they have a right to make representat ions to the
commissioner of the correctional services when placement of the
prisoner on parole is considered, to attend any relevant meetings of the
parole board, when the accused's parole is to be decided. This is subject
to the directive issued by the comm issioner of correctional services
under section 4 of the correctional services Act.
4. Accused is having t he right to appeal the convictions sentences which
18
were imposed on him today. You can request the legal aid attorneys or an
attorney where you pay out of your own pocket to assist you in
bring a substantive application for leave to appeal the conviction and
sentences within 14 days of this sentence. If your application is later
than 14 days then you should apply for the condonation , to be allowed
an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal out of time.
M Munzhelele J
Judge of the High Court, Pretoria
Heard On: 23 October 2024
Delivered On: 25 October 2024
APPEARANCES:
For the State: Adv A Roos
Instructed by: The National Director for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused: Adv B Kgagara
Instructed by: Legal Aid South Africa