-~
-
~ u~ ~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
In the matter between :
WILLIAM PETERSEN
CHRISTOPHER DAMON
and
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case No: A97/2026
First Appellant
Second Appellant
THE STATE Respondent
Coram : SMITH, AJ et (NZIWENI, J concurring)
Heard on : 11 September 2026
Delivered on: 16 September 2026
ORDER
The appeal in respect of conviction and sentence is dismissed .
2
JUDGMENT
SMITH, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against conviction and life sentence imposed on both
appellants, in terms of the provisions of s 51 (1} of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Act 105 of 1997 (CLAA}. The appellants were tried and convicted in the Regional Court
sitting at Mossel Bay on 9 March 2022 on a charge of murder.
[2] The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment on 24 May 2022. The
appellants both exercised their automatic right of appeal in terms of Section 309 (1 }(a)
of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA} Act 51 of 1977.1
Summarv of the evidence
[3] On 1 June 2017, during the late afternoon Cynthia Kees, Candice Scheepers
and Dotshie made their way to the shop in Hoogekraal, Groot Brak River. On their way
there they met the deceased. Candice warned him of the presence of the two
appellants and Hendrik in the area. Her warning emanated from an earlier altercation
between the deceased and the appellants and Hendrik. Soon thereafter Candice and
Cynthia heard a noise and ran towards it. They saw the deceased running towards
them. He was being chased by the appellants and Hendrik. The deceased fell and was
attacked by the appellants and Hendrik. The appellants used a small axe and a fishing
pole, to which a sharp metal point was attached, to attack the deceased. Cynthia, who
reached the deceased first, shouted at the appellants to stop their attack. After they
attacked the deceased, the appellants and Hendrik left together.
1 First proviso to Section 309(1)(a) Act 51 of 1977
3
[4] The deceased suffered multiple stab and incised wounds. He succumbed to his
wounds and died on the scene.
[5] The medico- legal postmortem examination concluded that the cause of death
was stab wounds to the chest involving the abdomen.
Conviction
[6] During the parties' submissions, counsel for the appellants conceded, and
rightly so, that the Regional Court Magistrate, on the merits, correctly found both
appellants guilty of murder. In fact, it was conceded that the credibility findings of the
Regional Magistrate could not be assailed. These concessions are borne out by the
appeal record.
[7] Equally clear from the record is that the Regional Magistrate did not misdirect
herself when she evaluated the evidence and convicted the appellants on the strength
thereof. The State presented not merely a high volume of evidence, but testimony of
significant qualitative value supported by sufficient corroborating evidence. As such,
careful consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that the appellant's attack
on the conviction is without merit.
Sentence
[8] Holmes JA in S v Rabie2 provided a guideline as to when interference in the
court a quo's sentence is permissible:
" 1. In every appeal against sentence, whether imposed by a magistrate or a judge,
the court hearing the appeal -
(i) Should be guided by the principle that punishment is pre- eminently a
matter for the discretion of the trial court, and
2 1975 (4) 855 A 857 O-F; S v Kekona 2013 (1) SACR 101 (SCA) 8
4
(ii) Should be careful not to erode such discretion: hence the further
principle that the sentence should only be altered if the discretion has
not been judicially and properly exercised.
2. The test under (ii) is whether the sentence is vitiated by irregularity or
misdirection or is disturbingly inappropriate."
[9] The court a quo considered the pre-sentence reports and other mitigating
factors on behalf of the appellants. The interests of society and the nature and
seriousness of the offence was duly considered. Counsel for the appellants conceded
that the court a quo "was aware of the well-known triad when imposing the sentence"3
[1 O] The appellant's chased the deceased, who was unarmed, until he fell down.
While he was lying on the ground, defenseless, they attacked him.
[11] Both the appellants maintain that they are innocent. There is no remorse shown
by any one of them. They lack insight into the seriousness of the offense they have
committed. This weighs against both appellants' prospects of rehabilitation.
(12] The minimum sentence of life imprisonment and the law applicable was
discussed and applied in the judgment of the court a quo. There was no irregularity or
misdirection when life imprisonment was imposed for both the appellants.
[13] After careful consideration of the record of the proceedings in the Regional
Court and the written and oral submissions of counsel for the appellants and the
respondent, I find no misdirection on the part of the Regional Court Magistrate in
respect of sentence of both the appellants.
In the result, I propose the following order:
3 Heads of Argument for the Appellants par S page 14
5
ORDER
The appeal in respect of conviction and sentence is dismissed .
S. I. SMITH, AJ
Acting Judge of the High Court
I agree, and it is so ordered.
-
C. N. NZIWENI
Judge of the High Court
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant: Ms I. Levendal
Instructed by: Legal Aid South Africa
For the Respondent: Adv M Engelbrecht
Instructed by: Directorate of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape