SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance
with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: SS39/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
DATE 06 March 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
RANKOW LERULL DONEL Accused 1
VAN WYK GARTH LAWRENCE Accused 2
_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________
2
DOSIO J:
Sentence
[1] The accused have been found guilty of the following offences:
(a) Count one - murder read with the provisions of s51(1) of the Criminal Law
Amendment
Act 105 of 1997 (‘Act 105 of 1997’)
(b) Count two- murder read with the provisions of s51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
(c) Count three- attempted murder.
[2] For purposes of sentence, this court has taken into consideration the personal
circumstances of the accused, the seriousness of the offences for which they have
been found guilty and the interests of the community.
Personal circumstances
Accused one
[3] A pre - sentence report was compiled in respect to accused one. His personal
circumstances are as follows:
(a) Accused one was born on 27 February 1997 and is 29 years old. He is the third
born of four children.
(b) His father passed away in 2009 when he was 12 years old. He was subsequently
raised by his mother who relied only on a child support grant of three children.
(c) Five years after his father`s passing he started developing anger issues and
financial constraints which led him to selling drugs.
(d) His mother passed away in 2018, and he was supported by his aunt.
(e) In December 2018 he e arned an income weekly of between R10 000 to R15 000
selling drugs. He was sixteen years old at this time . He also joined the gang called
the Verados in December 2018.
(f) Accused one commenced his formal education in 2003 a t Riverlea Primary School,
where he completed grade one to grade seven. He completed grade eight to nine at
Riverlea High School. He did not complete grade ten.
(g) At age sixteen he started smoking marijuana a nd at age eighteen he started
drinking alcohol.
3
(h) Although the ac cused has no previous conviction s, he has a history of engaging
with the justice system, which includes a charge of assault with intent to do grievous
bodily harm a t age fifteen years old, f or which he completed a court ordered
diversion program.
(i) The accused pleaded not guilty and did not show any signs of remorse as he
disputes the allegations.
(j) Accused one is unmarried , but was in a relationship with Ms Chloe Miller until they
broke up in November 2024 . They have a biological child, namely, L[...] R[...], aged
five years old. Accused one contributed financially to his daughter`s well-being prior
to his incarceration.
(k) In 2023 he was shot in his hip and a plate was inserted. As a result, this causes him
back pain when it’s cold.
Accused two
[4] A pre- sentence report was also compiled in respect to accused two. His personal
circumstances are as follows:
(a) He was born on 3 January 1990 and is 36 years old. He is the only child from his
mother and second from his father's children.
(b) He spent his early developmental years being raised by his maternal grandparents in
Riverlea. His father passed on when he was six years old . As a result of his father’s
passing, he found himself involved in gangsterism.
(c) He's gran dparents were pensioners and they relied on the accused`s maternal
uncle`s income.
(d) His mother ma rried his stepfather in 2003. The accused has had a strained
relationship with his mother and stepfather.
(e) In 2019 he moved out from his grandparent s` home for safety reasons related to
gang activities.
(f) He stayed at a friend’s house who is called Ms Veronica Anthony.
(g) The accused started schooling at Riverlea Primary School, and he completed grade
one to grade seven. He repeated grade eight and progressed up to grade ten.
(h) He dropped out of school in 2009 whilst doing grade ten.
(i) He started w orking at pick n pay as a truck assistant driver between 2016 to 2018
(i) He started w orking at pick n pay as a truck assistant driver between 2016 to 2018
earning R 8000 a month . From 2019 to 2020 he was con tracted at a construction
company earning R900 a week. He lost his job due to his addition to drugs. From
2019 until his arrest, he has been selling drugs on behalf of the gang, called the
4
Verados, which he joined in 2019. He generated R10 000 daily and off peak he made
approximately R3 000 to R4 000 daily.
(j) In 2008, the accused was injured during a gang related fight and lost his eye. Apart
from that his health is good. He started smoking cigarettes and marijuana at age
sixteen and also drank alcohol. In 2016, he started using mandrax and crystal meth.
He continued the use of drugs in 2019 when he began selling drugs.
(k) He has no previous convictions.
(l) Although he is certain that the Verados gang shot at the victims, he maintains he was
not present. He has expressed anger for being convicted for a crime he did not
commit. As a result, no remorse has been expressed in respect to the families who
have lost family members, or to Celine Hendriks who was injured.
Seriousness of the crime
[5] Both accused were in a vehicle which f irstly drove past the garage where the deceased
were, in order to scout the area. They then returned and started firing a h ail of bullets
towards this garage. It is clear there was no regard as to how many people were in that
garage and how many people would be injured.
[6] Both the two deceased were shot in cold blood, and Celine Hendriks was injured by five
bullets that penetrated her right leg and right upper abdomen.
[7] It is clear that the killing of the two deceased , namely, Ashley Ricardo Kelly on count
one, and Renaldo Deago Spies on count two must have been extremely traumatic to
their respective families.
[8] An affidavit was handed in by the state which was compiled by the father of the
deceased Renaldo Spies. The affidavit , which is comp iled by Desmond Leon Spies
states that Renaldo was the sole breadwinner of his son, namely Kieran Spies who
depended solely on his father. After finishing school, Renaldo Spies became the right-
hand man to Desmond Spies`s business. Renaldo Spies contributed to the local
community of Riverlea by employing people to assist in Desmond Spies`s business. The
community of Riverlea by employing people to assist in Desmond Spies`s business. The
death of Renaldo Spies had a huge impact on the immediate family of the deceased and
the community at large. Desmond Spies and his wife have had to now carry the financial
burden of looking after and providing for the son of Renaldo Spies, which has also
impacted on their social life.
5
[9] South Africa has a very high rate of murders which are caused by the use of firearms. No
matter how many hefty sentences are imposed, murder continues to prevail.
[10] The shooting of these three victims took place in a secured environment where they did
not pose any threat to accused one or two. On the night of the incident , the victims were
all enjoying a peaceful visit at the h ouse of Renaldo Spies. This was an unnecessary
killing and injuring of Celine Hendriks. The violent killings that take place by the Verados
gang are well- known in the Riverlea community, yet they continue unabated. The crimes
for which the accused have been found guilty are prevalent.
[11] This court cannot only look at the personal circumstances of the accused and overlook
the interests of the community.
Interests of the community
[12] In respect to the interests of the community , this court has taken note of the fact that the
community observes the sentence s that courts impose, and the community expect that
the criminal law be enforced and that offenders be punished. The community must
receive some recognition in the sentences the courts imposed, otherwise, the community
will take the law into their own hands. If a proper sentence is imposed, it may d eter
others from committ ing these crimes . Due to the fact that m urder of helpless and
innocent victims has reached high levels, the community craves the assistance of the
courts.
[13] In S v Msimanga and Another 1, the Appellant Division, as it then was, held that violence
in any form is no longer tolerated and our Courts, by imposing heavier sentences, must
send out a message both to prospective criminals that their conduct is not to be endured,
and to the public that Courts are seriously concerned with the restoration and
maintenance of safe living conditions and that the administration of justice must be
protected.
[14] Section 51(3) of Act 105 of 1997 states that if any court referred to in subsection (1) or
(2) is satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify the
1 S v Msimanga and Another 2005 (1) SACR 377 (A)
6
imposition of a lesser sentence than the sentence prescribed in this subsections, it shall
enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings and must thereupon impose
such lesser sentence.
[15] Neither of the two accused testified in mitigation of sentence . Although they have a right
to maintain their stance of not being guilty, they could have shown some remorse for the
trauma the families of the victims and Celine Hendriks experienced. No sign of remorse
was shown.
[16] In the matter of S v Malgas,2 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that:
‘if the sentencing court on consideration of the circumstances of the particular case is
satisfied that they render the prescribed senten ce unjust in that it would be
disproportionate to the crime, the criminal and the needs of society, so that an injustice
would be done by imposing that sentence, it is entitled to impose a lesser sentence.’3
[17] Section 51 (1) of Act 105 of 1997 dictates that if an accused has been convicted of an
offence referred to in part 1 of schedule 2, he shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.
[18] In the matter of S v Matyityi,4 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that:
‘Despite certain limited successes there has been no real let -up in the crime pandemic
that engulfs our country. The situation continues to be alarming…one notices all too
frequently a willingness on the part of sentencing courts to deviate from the minimum
sentences prescribed by the legislature for the flimsiest of reasons… As Malgas makes
plain courts have a duty, despite any personal doubts about the efficacy of the policy or
personal aversion to it, to implement those sentences…Courts are obliged to impose
those sentences unless there are truly convincing reasons for departing from them.
Courts are not free to subvert the will of the legislature by resort to vague, ill -defined
concepts such as ‘relative youthfulness’ or other equally vague and ill -founded
concepts such as ‘relative youthfulness’ or other equally vague and ill -founded
hypotheses that appear to fit the particular sentencing officer’s notion of fairness.’5
[19] The defence counsel has requested that the following are comp elling and substantial
circumstances to depart from the minimum prescribed sentence, namely:
(a) both accused are still young,
2 S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 SCA
3 Ibid para i
4 S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 SCA
5 Ibid para 24
7
(b) they have no previous convictions or pending matters, and
(c) they both have similar backgrounds which caused them to get involved in
gangsterism.
[20] This court has considered the fact that the accused are 27 and 36 years old respectively,
however, as stated in the matter S v Matyitl 6, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that ‘at
the age of 27 the resp ondent could hardly be described as a callow youth . At best for
him his chronological age was a neutral factor’. As a result, this Court finds there are no
substantial and compelling circumstances present in respect to the accused on count
one or two that warrants a departure from the prescribed statutory sentence of life
imprisonment.
[21] The accused ha ve been in custody for more than a year, but as stated in the matter of
DPP v Gcwala 7, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the period in detention pre -
sentencing is but one of the factors that should be taken into account in determining
whether the effective period of imprisonment to be imposed is justified an d whether it is
proportionate to the crimes committed. It was further stated in this case that the test is
not whether on its own that p eriod of detention constitutes a substantial and compelling
circumstance, but whether the effective sentence proposed is proportionate to the crimes
and whether the sentence in all the circumstances, including the period spent in
detention prior to conviction and sentence is a just one . This Court finds the sentence of
life imprisonment in respect to count one and two is a just sentence in the circumstances
of this case.
[22] The accused have not played open cards with the court. As per the pre -sentence report
of accused two, accused two told the probation officer that:
“Although he is certain that the Verados shot at the victims, he was not there…”
Accused two must have had some knowledge of this crime as he is part of the Verados
gang, yet, he elected to remain silent in this regard.
gang, yet, he elected to remain silent in this regard.
[23] The pre-sentence reports both state that although both accused one and two each have
a dependant to look after and that their respective families view their convictions with
shock, the fact remains th ey are a danger to the community, and they must be removed
from the community.
6 Matyityi (note 4 above)
7 DPP v Gcwala (295/13) [2014] ZASCA 44 (31 March 2014)
8
[24] In the result, the accused are sentenced to the following sentences:
(a) Count one, both accused are sentenced to life imprisonment.
(b) Count two, both accused are sentenced to life imprisonment.
(c) Count three, both accused are sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment.
[25] Due to the fact that both accused are sentenced to life imprisonment on count one, the
life imprisonment imposed in respect to count two, as well as the ten (10) years
imprisonment imposed on count three, will run concurrently with the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed on count one.
[26] In terms of section 103 (1)(g) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 , both accused are
declared unfit to possess a firearm.
_______________
D DOSIO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
9
APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: Adv. Mentjies (for accused 1 and 2)
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: Adv. J Masina
Instructed by the Office of the National
Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg