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
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)

Case Number: K/S 13A/24
Reportable: YES / NO
Circulate to Judges: YES / NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO

In the matter between:

THE STATE

and

ALBERTO LINDEN MATTHEWS ACCUSED

Heard on : 4 February 2026
Delivered on : 5 February 2026
Coram : Olivier AJ


JUDGMENT – SENTENCE

2

OLIVIER AJ

1. On 20 November 2025, Mr. Alberto Linden Matthews was found guilty on the
following charges:
1.1 Contravening the provisions of section 3 read with the provisions of
sections 1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule 4 of the Firearms
Control Act and further read with the provisions of section 250 of the
Criminal Procedure Act in that, on or about 27 and 28 December
2023 and at or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of
Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews was in unlawful possession of a
7,65mm caliber firearm for which he was not the holder of a license
or permit issued to him in terms of the Firearms Control Act;

1.2 Contravening the provisions of section 90 read with the provisions of
sections 1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a) and 121 of the Firearms Control Act
and further read with the provisions of section 250 of the Criminal
Procedure Act in that, on or about 27 and 28 December 2023 and at
or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, Mr.
Matthews was in unlawful possession of ammunition for a 7,65mm
caliber firearm for which he was not the holder of a license or permit;

1.3 Contravening the provisions of section 4(1)(f)(iv) read with the
provisions of sections 1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a) and 121 of the Firearms
Control Act and further read with the provisions of section 250 of the
Criminal Procedure Act in that, on or about 27 and 28 December
2023 and at or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of
Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews was in unlawful possession of a
prohibited firearm, to wit a 7,65mm caliber firearm of which the serial
number was obliterated;

1.4 Contravening the provisions of section 17(1) read with the provisions
of section 1 of the Domestic Violence Act, in that Mr. Matthews,
contravened the provisions of a protection order that was issued
against him on 28 November 2023 and that was served on him on

3

11 December 2023, in that he, on or about 27 December 2023
entered the residence at 1[...] M[...] Road, Belgravia, Beaconsfield;
1.5 Murder, in that on 27 December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...]
Road, Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, Mr.
Matthews unlawfully and intentionally killed M[...] A[...] B[...] (“the
deceased”);

1.6 Contravening the provisions of section 120(6)(a) read with the
provisions of section 1, 103, 117(3)(c), 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule
4 and 151 of the Firearms Control Act in that, on or about 27
December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...] Road, Beaconsfield,
Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews unlawfully
and intentionally pointed a firearm at W[...] B[...] without good reason
to do so; and

1.7 Contravening the provisions of section 120(6)(a) read with the
provisions of section 1, 103, 117(3)(c), 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule
4 and 151 of the Firearms Control Act in that, on or about 27
December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...] Road, Beaconsfield,
Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, the accused unlawfully
and intentionally pointed a firearm at E[...] P[...] C[...] without good
reason to do so.

2. Mr. Matthews initially pleaded not guilty on all of the charges put to him by
the State and after hearing evidence and after having regards to the relevant
exhibits in the matter, I found that the State managed to prove the guilt of Mr.
Matthews on the above charges.

3. The State presented me with Mr. Matthews’ previous convictions1 from which
it appears that Mr. Matthews has one previous conviction for attempted
murder for which he served a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.


1 The SAP69 was handed up and accepted as Exhibit “X”.

4

Mr. Matthews’ counsel indicated that Mr. Matthews apparently served only 8
(eight) months of the said sentence.

4. The said crime was committed on 20 March 2016 and he was convicted on
29 September 2016.

The previous conviction was acknowledged by Mr. Matthews.

5. Subsequent to Mr. Matthews’ conviction, Mr. Maroke , who appeared for Mr.
Matthews, requested an opportunity to obtain and present a pre -sentencing
report and the matter was postponed for sentencing purposes to 4 and 5
February 2026.

6. At the commencement of the proceedings on 4 February 2026, Mr. Maroke
did in fact present me with a pre-sentencing report that was handed up by
agreement between the parties and was marked as Exhibit “Y”.

Mr. Matthews confirmed that he was satisfied with the contents of the report.

7. Ms. Pillay, for the State, presented the evidence of two witnesses prior to her
argument to wit E[...] P[...] C[...] the daughter of the deceased and R[...] B[...]
the sister of the deceased.

All of the above was taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing.

8. It is now incumbent on this Court to consider a proper sentence in this matter
and the proper starting point in determining the appropriate sentence, is the
so-called triad as set out in S v Zinn2 namely to consider the circumstances
relevant to the particular crime, the circumstances of the criminal involved
and the interests of society and to then consider whether substantial and

2 1969 (2) SA 537 (A).

5

compelling circumstances exist that would warrant a deviation from the
minimum sentences if and where applicable.

9. One extremely important aspect that is usually lost sight of is the fact that
justice cuts both ways, in other words, just as much as the public expects of
a court to mete out justice, justice must also be done in as far as an accused
person is concerned.

10. Our Constitution in fact entrenches the right of every person to a fair trial3
and the right to a fair trial does not simply disappear once a person is found
guilty of a crime, in other words even at the sentencing stage, a person who
was found guilty is entitled to be treated with fairness.

11. I am fortified in my views by the Supreme Court of Appeal that, in S v RO
and Another4, held as follows:

‘Sentencing is about achieving the right balance (or, in more high -flowing terms,
proportionality). The elements at play are the crime, the offender and the interests
of society, with different nuance, prevention, reformation and deterrence. Invariably
there are overlaps that render the process unscientific, even a proper exercise of
the judicial function allows reasonable people to arrive at different conclusions.’

12. It remains the duty of the court always to impose a sentence that is fair and
just and that, in order to do so, the court should consider “…all relevant
factors and to find the appropriate balance between often competing factors
that would lead to a fair and just sentence in all the circumstances of a
particular case.”5


3 See Section 35(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
4 2010 (2) SACR 248 (SCA), par 30.
5 S v Pitso [2025] ZANCHC 61(1August 2025), par 33.

6

13. The above is the simple and only reason why I ordered the matter to be
postponed in order for the defence to obtain and present a pre -sentencing
report.

14. The matter before me has attracted great public and media interest and I am
mindful of the fact that the public and specifically the family of the deceased
(and certainly also the family of Mr. Matthews) demand that justice be
served.

15. Certain public utterances by family members of specifically the deceased
can be described as extremely emotional and although one can certainly not
blame them, the court must be careful to not let emotions cloud its judgment
when it comes to considering an appropriate sentence.

16. The Supreme Court of Appeal has specifically warned against relying
predominantly or exclusively on public opinion when an appropriate
sentence is concerned where it was held as follows in Gardener v S6:

“True justice can only be meted out by one who is properly informed and objective.
Members of the community, no matter how closely involved with the crime, the
victim or the criminal will never possess either sufficient comprehension of or insight
into what is relevant or the objectivity to analyse and reconcile them as fair
sentencing requires. That is why public or private indignation can be no more than
one factor in the equation...”7 (My omissions).

The same court has also held as follows:

‘… it is necessary to express a general note of caution. The object of sentencing is
not to satisfy public opinion but to serve the public interest…A sentencing policy
that caters predominantly or exclusively for public opinion is inherently flawed. It

6 [2011] ZASCA 24 (18 March 2011).
7 Gardener, supra, par 68.

7

remains the court's duty to impose fearlessly an appropriate and fair sentence, even
if the sentence does not satisfy the public.’8(My omissions).

I intend to do exactly this.

The Seriousness of the Offences:
17. I hold the view that it is stating the obvious to say that the possession of
illegal firearms and ammunition, murder and pointing of firearms are in
general serious offences and the rate at which murders in South African
have been committed, has been described by the Supreme Court of Appeal
as “alarming”9; a description with which I fully agree.

18. The fact that in the present matter specifically the crime of murder, the crime
of a contravention of a protection order and at least one crime of pointing of
a firearm has been committed in respect of a woman, holds specific
significance in our modern-day society as government and society in general
demands that any type of violence against woman should be eradicated.

19. I align myself with the learned Tlaletsi JP where he stated as follows in
Smous v S10 as follows:

‘Violence in our society, particularly by men against women is prevalent. The
interests of society dictate that a strong message to the public that violence will not
be tolerated should be sent…Respect for the law must be guaranteed. A sentence
should be fair to the society, the offence, the offender and be blended with a
measure of mercy.’11(My omissions).

20. The seriousness of the murder charge on which Mr. Matthews was found
guilty, is aggravated by the fact that he must have been in possession of the

8 Mhlakaza and Another v S [1997] 2 All SA 185 (A) at 189.
9 See S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA), par 23.
10 [2017] ZANCHC 56 (15 September 2017).
11 Smous, supra, par 23.

8

illegal firearm and ammunition when he visited the property at 1[...] M[...]
Road, Beaconsfield, Kimberley on that fateful day of 27 December 2023.

21. It is still uncertain as to what set Mr. Matthews off so that he decided to
shoot the deceased, but the fact of the matter is that, if he was not in
possession of the firearm and ammunition at the time, the deceased would
not have been shot and killed.

22. Further to the above, it is clear from the evidence that, at some stage during
the time that Mr. Matthews spent in the house, he must have formed the
intention to shoot and kill the deceased which prompted him to walk into her
bedroom, point a firearm at her, shot her twice and killed her – and all this in
front of her 9-year-old daughter.

23. I am consequently of the view that Mr. Matthews, although he might have
formed the intent to kill the deceased after ent ering the house (in other
words an “ on-the-spot intent ”), definitely had the direct intention to kill the
deceased.


24. I find very little miti gation in Mr. Matthews’ conduct, since he offered none
and simply pleaded his innocence by putting up bare denials to facts put to
him; in fact, Mr. Matthews’ continued conduct can only be described as
defiant.

25. This is totally contradictory to the content of the pre -sentencing report that
described Mr. Matthews as being remorseful and hoping to find forgiveness
from the family of the deceased.

It must be said that I found Mr. Matthews’ conduct and demeanor in court
anything but remorseful – quite the contrary.

9

26. The evidence suggests that the deceased was in fact defenceless since the
evidence shows that the deceased was lying on her bed when Mr. Matthews
entered the room shortly before he shot her.

27. Further to the above, it should be kept in mind that the deceased was shot
by someone who was supposed to care for her and to protect her against
harm and she was shot in her house, the one place that she was supposed
to feel safe.

28. The effect of Mr. Matthews’ conduct is that a family was left ripped apart and
a minor female child now has to grow up without a mother at an age where a
mother’s guidance is becoming increasingly important and essential.

29. Suffice it to say that the evidence that was tendered shows a broken and
disillusioned family that is deeply affected by the passing of the Deceased ; a
family that still struggles with financial and emotional issues.

It was stated in the pre -sentencing report under the heading “VICTIM
STATEMENT” after the writer of the report consulted with Mrs. Booysen, the
sister of the deceased:

‘R[...] B[...] mentioned that E[...], daughter of the deceased, has been diagnosed
with depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This happened as a result of
the death of her mother. It is said that she has suicidal till this point. E[...] is on anti-
depressants and is still consulting with a Psychologist. It was further stated that
E[...] left her work as a result of the depression and PTSD.

The youngest daughter of the deceased, E[...], is mentioned to be very withdrawn
since the incident. She always prefers to be on her own and does not easily speak
about her mother. It was said that her school progress has dropped since the death
of her mother. She has emotional outbursts at times. E[...] is receiving
psychological help.’

10

The above was echoed by E[...] C[...] and R[...] B[...] during their
uncontested evidence.

30. I am of the view that the fact that the deceased’s murder might, on the
evidence, not have been pre -meditated, does very little to distract from the
fact that a heinous crime was committed.

31. This brings me to what will most probably be a contentious issue in respect
of the murder charge and that is the question whether the murder of the
deceased in this case falls under the provisions of section 51(1) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act12 (“the CLAA”) or not.

32. Section 51(1) of the CLAA reads as follows:

‘Notwithstanding any other law, but subject to subsections (3) and (6) a High Court
shall sentence a person it has convicted of an offence referred to in Part I of
Schedule 2 to imprisonment for life.’ (My omissions).

33. Part I of Schedule 2 of the CLAA lists the offence of murder as one of the
offences that carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment and
specifically where the death of the deceased resulted from physical abuse as
defined in terms of the Domestic Violence Act by an accused who is or was
in a domestic relationship with the deceased.13

34. Section 51(2) of the CLAA reads as follows:

‘Notwithstanding any other law but subject to subsections (3) and (6), a regional
court or a High Court shall sentence a person who has been convicted of an
offence referred to in—


12 Act 105 of 1997.
13 See Part I, Schedule 2(g) of the CLAA.

11

(a) Part II of Schedule 2, in the case of—

(i) a first offender, to imprisonment for a period not less than 15 years;

(ii) a second offender of any such offence, to imprisonment for a period
not less than 20 years; and

(iii) a third or subsequent offender of any such offence, to imprisonment
for a period not less than 25 years”

35. Part II of Schedule 2 of the CLAA lists the offence of murder under
circumstances other than in Part 1.

36. Ms. Pillay argued that the conviction on the charge of murder carried a
minimum sentence of life imprisonment and this argument, strangely
enough, was not disputed by Mr. Maroke.

I disagree with the above for the reasons below.

37. In my judgment in respect of the verdict, I purposefully found Mr. Matthews
guilty of murder without referring to the issue of whether section 51(1) or
section 51(2) of the CLAA applies as I was always of the view that this
should be dealt with during the sentencing stage of the matter.

38. My reasoning is simply that sections 51(1) and 51(2) do not create two
different crimes – there is still only one crime namely murder and Mr.
Matthews knew, throughout the trial , that he was in fact facing a charge of
murder.

Sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the CLAA are simply sentencing regimes that
apply based on the specific circumstances of the murder.

12


39. It goes without saying that the onus to show that this particular murder (of
Mr. Matthews on the deceased) falls within the scope of section 51(1) of the
CLAA, rested on the State and in this case, I hold the view that the State has
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Matthews pre -planned the
murder of the deceased.

40. The principle is simple – if the State cannot prove it, the court cannot find it
and in the present matter I am therefore of the view that, the murder of the
deceased falls under section 51(2) of the CLAA and in view of the fact that
Mr. Matthews is a second offender, carries a minimum sentence of 20 years
imprisonment.
The Circumstances of the Accused:

41. Mr. Matthews is 46 years old, he is not married but has three children of
which two are minors and he is currently unemployed.

Mr. Matthews was married to the deceased for approximately 3 years prior to
the incident but they never had children of their own.

42. Prior to his arrest Mr. Matthews was gainfully employed, but he lost his
employment as a result of his arrest.

43. Mr. Matthews has been in custody for approximately 2 years.

44. Mr. Matthews, as was already mentioned, has one previous conviction for
attempted murder of a previous girlfriend and he pleaded not guilty on all
charges levelled against him.

13

45. In Vilakazi v S14 the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that in instances of
crimes of a serious nature, the personal circumstances of an offender will
recede into the background.

The Court held as follows:

‘Once it becomes clear that the crime is deserving of a substantial term of
imprisonment the questions whether the accused us married or single, whether he
has two children or three, whether or not he is in employment, are in themselves
largely immaterial to what the period should be…But they are nonetheless relevant
in another respect. A material consideration is whether the accused can be
expected to offend again. While that can never be confidently predicted his or her
circumstances might assist in making at least some assessment.’15

46. It was emphasised during argument by Mr. Maroke that, despite a comment
in the pre-sentencing report to the contrary, Mr. Matthews is in fact
remorseful and that he wishes to be forgiven by the family of the deceased.

47. In S v Matyityi16 the Court held as follows:

‘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. Until and unless
that happens, the genuineness of the contrition alleged cannot be determined. After
all, 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.’

48. Mr. Matthews did not testify on his own behalf during the sentencing
proceedings and it is therefore difficult to determine whether he is genuinely

14 [2008] 4 All SA 396 (SCA).
15 Vilakazi, supra, par 58.
16 [2011] 2 All SA 424 (SCA), par 13.

14

remorseful and I have to agree with the Supreme Court of Appeal where it
has held as follows:

‘His silence thus leads irresistibly to the conclusion that there was nothing to be said
in his favour.”17

I have already commented on Mr. Matthews’ conduct in court and on the fact
that I found it defiant and anything but remorseful.
The Interest of Society:

49. I have already referred to the issue of the interests of society herein above
and I do not intend to rehash it all again.

50. I will however be remiss if I did not refer to the matter of S v WV18 where the
Court emphasized the fact that the kind of sentence imposed will cause
society to either have confidence in the judicial system or lose confidence in
it.

51. I agree with this as it seems that the public in general and all too frequently,
view the South African judicial system as a d og that is all bark and no bite
whilst it is important that the public has confidence in the judicial system and
in the sentences imposed by the Courts.

Substantial and Compelling Circumstances:

52. This brings me to the question whether substantial and compelling
circumstances exist that would justify a deviation from the minimum
sentence on specifically the murder charge but I wish to state it clearly that in
dealing with this question and in focussing on the murder charge, I am in no
way attempting to diminish the seriousness of the other crimes on which Mr.
Matthews was found guilty.

17 Matyityi, supra, par 21.
18 2013 (1) SACR 204 (GP).

15


53. In the often -quoted Supreme Court of Appeal case of S v Malgas 19 it was
held that a Court may impose a lesser sentence if the Court, upon due
consideration of the particular circumstances of the case, is satisfied that the
prescribed minimum sentence is rendered unjust in that it would be
disproportionate to the crime, the criminal and the needs of society so much
so that an injustice would be done by imposing the prescribed sentence.20

54. It is however also true that the same Court held earlier in Malgas that the
prescribed sentences should not be departed from lightly and for flimsy
reasons which could not withstand scrutiny.21

55. I have already commented on the seriousness of the murder charge despite
the fact that it might not have been pre -meditated and I hold the view that
serious question marks should be placed over whether his previous
conviction and sentence had any influence on the Mr. Matthews in respect of
deterring him from committing another crime.

56. I have again considered Mr. Matthews’ personal circumstances and I also
took cognizance of the fact that Mr. Matthews has already spent 2 years in
detention whilst this trial was ongoing, but I could not find anything that
prompted me from holding that a deviation from the minimum prescribed
sentence would be in order.

57. The flipside of the coin is however that the crime s committed by Mr.
Matthews are serious and in fact heinous and the public demands a strong
message to be sent to, not only Mr. Matthews , but also to all would be
perpetrators that the judicial system will not tolerate the senseless, reckless
and unjustified killing of another human being especially where that victim is
a defenceless woman.

19 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA).
20 See Malgas, supra, par 25.
21 Malgas, supra, par 9.

16


58. I have to agree with the conclusion reached in the pre -sentencing report
namely that nothing other but a sentence of imprisonment would do in these
circumstances.

SENTENCE:

59. I will refer to the counts upon which Mr. Matthews is about to be sentenced,
as they were put to him in the indictment.

60. After having considered all of the relevant circumstances and having taken
all of the above into consideration, I sentence Mr. Alberto Linden Matthews
as follows:

Count 2:

Contravening the provisions of section 3 read with the provisions of sections 1, 103,
117, 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule 4 of the Firearms Control Act and further read with
the provisions of section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act in that, on or about 27
and 28 December 2023 and at or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of
Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews was in unlawful possession of a 7,65mm caliber
firearm for which he was not the holder of a license or permit issued to him in terms
of the Firearms Control Act;

Count 3:

Contravening the provisions of section 90 read with the provisions of sections 1, 103,
117, 120(1)(a) and 121 of the Firearms Control Act and further read with the
provisions of section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act in that, on or about 27 and
28 December 2023 and at or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of Frances
Baard, Mr. Matthews was in unlawful possession of ammunition for a 7,65mm caliber
firearm for which he was not the holder of a license or permit;

17

I take counts 2 and 3 together for purposes of sentencing and I sentence Mr.
Matthews to 5 (five) years imprisonment.


Count 4:

Contravening the provisions of section 4(1)(f)(iv) read with the provisions of sections
1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a) and 121 of the Firearms Control Act and further read with the
provisions of section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act in that, on or about 27 and
28 December 2023 and at or near Beaconsfield, Kimberley in the district of Frances
Baard, Mr. Matthews was in unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm , to wit a
7,65mm caliber firearm of which the serial number was obliterated.

This charge is serious and I sentence Mr. Matthews to 10 ( ten) years
imprisonment.

Count 5:

Contravening the provisions of section 17(1) read with the provisions of section 1 of
the Domestic Violence Act, in that Mr. Matthews, contravened the provisions of a
protection order that was issued against him on 28 November 2023 and that was
served on him on 11 December 2023, in that he, on or about 27 December 2023
entered the residence at 1[...] M[...] Road, Belgravia, Beaconsfield;
On this charge I sentence Mr. Matthews to 2 (two) years imprisonment.

Count 6:

Murder, in that on 27 December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...] Road, Beaconsfield,
Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews unlawfully and intentionally
killed M[...] A[...] B[...] (“the deceased”);

I could find no reason to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence as
prescribed in section 51(2) read with Part II of Schedule 2 of the CLAA and I
sentence Mr. Matthews to 20 (twenty) years imprisonment.

18


Count 7:

Contravening the provisions of section 120(6)(a) read with the provisions of section
1, 103, 117(3)(c), 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule 4 and 151 of the Firearms Control Act
in that, on or about 27 December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...] Road, Beaconsfield,
Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, Mr. Matthews unlawfully and intentionally
pointed a firearm at W[...] B[...] without good reason to do so; and

Count 8:

Contravening the provisions of section 120(6)(a) read with the provisions of section
1, 103, 117(3)(c), 120(1)(a), 121 and schedule 4 and 151 of the Firearms Control Act
in that, on or about 27 December 2023 and at or near 1[...] M[...] Road, Beaconsfield,
Kimberley in the district of Frances Baard, the accused unlawfully and intentionally
pointed a firearm at E[...] P[...] C[...] without good reason to do so.

I take counts 7 and 8 together for purposes of sentencing and I sentence Mr.
Matthews to 10 (ten) years imprisonment.

61. It is ordered that the sentences on counts 2, count 3, count 4, count 5 and
counts 7 and 8 shall run concurrently and that the sentence on count 6 shall
run separately from and consecutively to the sentences on counts 2, count 3,
count 4, count 5 and counts 7 and 8.

62. The effective sentence which Mr. Matthews is to serve is 30 years
imprisonment.

63. I make no determination as to whether Mr. Matthews is fit to possess a
firearm since he has already been declared unfit to do so.

64. As part of the sentencing process, I hereby inform the immediate relatives of
the deceased of their right, subject to the directives issued by the

19

Commissioner of Correctional Services, to make representations when
placement of Mr. Matthews on parole, on day parole or under correctional
supervision is considered and to attend any meeting of the parole board, as
contemplated in terms of Section 299A of the CPA.




_________________________
A.D. OLIVIER
ACTING JUDGE
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION

REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES:

For THE STATE : Adv. L. Pillay
o.i.o Office of the Director Public Prosecutions
KIMBERLEY

For THE ACCUSED : Mr. Maroke (Judicare)
o.i.o Justice Centre
KIMBERLEY