IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
Case No: GSH (463/23)
Petition No: P20/2025
In the matter between:
DANIEL DEKKER Appellant
and
THE STATE Respondent
Coram: Nziweni J and Golden AJ.
Heard: 10 October 2025
Delivered: 10 October 2025
________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________
2
The appeal on sentence is upheld. The sentence is amended follows:
1. In relation to Count 1, the sentence of 6 years is upheld.
2. In relation to Count 2, the sentence of 6 years is upheld, save that 4 years
shall run concurrently with the sentence in Count 1.
3. In relation to Count 3, the sentence is upheld, save that it shall run
concurrently with the sentence imposed for Counts 1 and 2.
4. The sentence for direct imprisonment shall be backdated to 6 June 2024 when
the appellant was sentenced in the Regional Court, Parow.
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________
GOLDEN, AJ:
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the sentence that was imposed by the Regional
Court Magistrate, Parow. The appellant was found guilty on 6 June 2024
of two counts of theft of a motor vehicle and one count of theft out of a
motor vehicle ; committed against multiple victims over a thirteen-month
period.
2. On count s one and two, the appellant was sentenced to six years
imprisonment for each count and for count three the appellant was
sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Regional Court Magistrate
imposed consecutive sentences on all counts, resulting to an effective
3
sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
3. The appellant does not appe al the conviction. Leave to appeal against the
sentence was granted by this Court on 17 April 2025.
4. In his petition for leave to appeal against the sentence in terms of Section
309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (“ the CPA ”), the
appellant relies on the following grounds in his appeal:
4.1 The sentence imposed induces a sense of shock and is
disproportionate in the circumstances.
4.2 The learned Regional Magistrate overemphasised the seriousness
of the offence and undermined the personal circumstances of the
accused.
4.3 The appellant is a first offender for these types of offences.
4.4 The appellant still has his whole life ahead as he is still young.
4.5 The learned Regional Magistrate did not exercise mercy on the
appellant.
4.6 The Court should have due regard to the totality of the appellant’s
personal circumstances.
4.7 The learned Regional Magistrate failed to take into account that the
appellant was incarcerated, awaiting trial.
4
4.8 The learned Regional Magistrate failed to have due regard to the
rehabilitation of the appellant and imposed a sentence that does not
address this factor in the sentencing process.
5. As previously mentioned, the court a quo did not sentence the appellant in
terms of Section 280 of the CPA that the sentences imposed for the three
convictions should run concurrently but instead exercised its discretion and
ordered that the sentences imposed for each individual conviction should
run consecutively. The record does not show that the court a quo
considered the cumulative impact of the sentence. The effect of this is that
the sentences imposed individually for all three convictions result s in 15
years direct imprisonment.
6. I set out a b rief summary of the facts upon which the appellant was
convicted before I turn to deal with the sentence . The facts appear from
the
record.
Summary of the facts surrounding the commission of the offences
7. The first count involves the theft of a Nissan Navara motor vehicle, owned
by a Mr Abdullah Arnold (“Arnold”). The second count of theft related to
a Volkswagen Jetta 3 VR6 owned by Mr Sanoxolo Vandala (“Vandala”).
The third count, theft out of a motor vehicle, related to a SsangYong
Rexton owned by Mr Gregory Peters (“Peters”). All three complainants
5
responded to the appellant’s advertisement on Facebook, where he falsely
advertised himself as a mechanic.
8. In relation to Arnold, the theft of his vehicle occurred on or about 27
November 2018 . The theft relating to Vandala’s vehicle occurred on or
about 2 May 2019 and in relation to Peters, the theft out of his motor
vehicle occurred on or about 10 December 2021.
9. In all three instances, the appellant had wanted upfront cash payments
from the complainants who paid him. In each case, the appellant’s modus
operandi involved him informing the complainants that additional repairs
were required to their cars w ith an additional cost. Trusting him, the
complainants made these additional payments. In relation to A rnold, the
appellant had also at some stage informed Arnold that his (the appellant’s)
daughter had been burnt and that he needed money for hospital bills.
Arnold was sympathetic and made an additional payment to the a ppellant.
However, the ap pellant continued to add more problems to the motor
vehicle and required Arnold to pay more money as time went on. When
Arnold requested the return of the car in frustration, which the appellant
had promised, it never materialised. The same modus operandi was
followed in the case of Vandala in relation to his VW Jetta. Vandala paid
the appellant a deposit of R4 000.00 whereafter the appellant collected the
motor vehicle from a place called Mike’s Place for the repairs. When
Vandala went to the appellant’s home to collect the car, he was informed
6
that the accused had gone on the road to test drive the car. While Vandala
was waiting for the accused at his (the accused’s) home, he then received
a telephone call from the accused who claimed that he (the appellant) had
been highjacked along the N1 in Kraaifontein . The appellant told Vandala
to go to Kraaifontein Police Station with the documents of the Jetta.
When Vandala attended the Kraaifontein Police Station, he found that the
appellant had not opened a case of highjacking. This is when he became
suspicious of the accused. Vandala then attended the Elsies River Police
Station where he laid a charge of theft of a motor vehicle against the
appellant. He has up to today not recovered his motor vehicle. This
pattern continued with Peters who had contacted the appellant to repair his
vehicle. Peters too was required to make a n upfront payment to the
appellant in an amount of R10 000.00 , which he made on
17 December 2021. On the very next day, 18 December 2021, the
appellant called Peters to say that he needed more money for the repairs .
Peters then proceeded to pay the appellant another R7 000.00 the next day.
Thereafter, the appellant requested another payment of R1 000.00 from
Peters for his (the appellant’s) son’s birthday. This is when Peters became
suspicious and decided not to send the appellant the money which he had
asked for his (the appellant’s) son’s birthday. However, Peters paid a
further amount to the appellant, purportedly for certain parts that he
required for the repairs. In early January 2022, the appellant then
informed Peters that his car had been impounded by the City of Cape
7
Town law enforcement officers which occurred on 8 January 2022. Peters
found his car at the City’s impound yard in Pinelands. The car was found
without an engine, gearbox and headrests. He had to pay an amount of
R1 000.00 for the release and removal of what was left of the car.
10. The Regional Magistrate correctly described the appellant as a thief, that
he had “scammed” the complainants and had milked the complainants of
their money. The appellant has unashamedly preyed on these unsuspecting
complainants, two of whom are elderly persons who trusted the appellant
with their vehicles and their money. The appellant did not show empathy
for his victims. The facts of this matter also strongly suggest that offences
were premeditated. I agree with the magistrate that it was disturbing that
the appellant had not shown any sign of remorse for his conduct.
11. The appellant is not a first offender; he has a previous conviction that also
involved an element of dishonesty. For the previous conviction , the
appellant was partly sentenced to a prison term . Clearly, at that time, the
court gave him time to reflect on his conduct . He was also given the
opportunity to rehabilitate. Evidently, the sentence that was imposed for
his previous conviction did not deter him from committing crimes
involving dishonesty. Instead, he committed a spree of offences.
12. Whilst the Regional Magistrate considered both mitigating and
aggravating factors including the accused’s previous conviction for fraud
and that he had abused the trust of the complainants, the sentence must not
8
be excessive and must fit the crimes.
13. It is trite that sentencing falls within the discretion of the trial court. In
addressing sentence, this Court must be guided by the principles set out in
S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A) and S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A). In Zinn,
the Appellate Division (as it then was) held that the approach to sentence
should consider the nature of the crime, the offender and the interests of
society, known as the triad principle.
14. A court of appeal is entitled to interfere with the sentence if the sentence is
disturbingly inappropriate, and so totally disproportionate with the offence
or vitiated by misdirection showing that the trial court had exercised its
discretion unreasonably (see S v Pillay 1977 (4) SA 531 (A) and S v
Salzwedel & Others 1999 (2) SACR 586 (SCA)).
15. In Bogaards v S 2013 (1) SACR 1 (CC), the Constitutional Court held
that:
“An appellate court’s powers to interfere with sentence imposed by
courts below is circumscribed. It can only do so where there has
been an irregularity that results in the failure of justice; the court
below misdirected itself to such an extent that its decision on
sentence is vitiated; or the sentence is so disproportionate or
shocking that no reasonable court could have it imposed.”
9
16. The question is whether the cumulative sentences imposed resulted in
excessive direct imprisonment for the appellant.
17. It is not in dispute that the court a quo did not consider section 280 of the
CPA and whether it was not appropriate for the sentences to run
concurrently. The effect of this misdirection is that the Regional Magistrate
imposed a cumulative sentence which was excessive, and which resulted in
direct imprisonment of 15 years.
18. It is this Court’s view that the cumulative effect of the consecutive
sentences is unduly harsh and excessive. As such, this Court can order that
the sentences or a portion thereof to run concurrently.
19. The a ppellant ha s a pattern of defrauding people which conduct, in my
view, warrants direct imprisonment. He must serve a meaningful period of
direct imprisonment given his previous conviction for fraud . Undeterred
by this previous conviction, the appellant continued to defraud and steal
from the three complainants.
20. Thus, whilst the appellant must serve a period of direct imprisonment, a
15- year period of direct imprisonment is excessive.
21. In the result, the following order is made:
(a) The appeal against sentence is upheld. The sentence imposed by the
Regional Magistrate is hereby set aside and replaced with the
10
following sentence:
(b) Count 1: 6 years imprisonment.
(c) Count 2: 6 years imprisonment. It is further ordered that 4 years of
this sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in
Count 1.
(d) Count 3: 3 years imprisonment and it is further ordered that this
sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence s imposed for
Counts 1 and 2.
(e) Effectively, the appellant is sentence to 8 years imprisonment.
(f) The sentence is backdated to 6 June 2024 [when the appellant was
sentenced in the Regional Court, Parow].
___________________________
TJ GOLDEN, AJ
Acting Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Western Cape Division, Cape Town
______________________________
I agree and it is so ordered
NZIWENI J
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Western Cape Division, Pretoria
11
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Adv N Kunju
Legal Aid of South Africa
For the Respondent: Adv MJ September
Director of Public Prosecution