IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA		
	BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION		

CASE NO.:CA 85/07	
	In the matter between:
		
	MASWANGANYI JOSEPH THAPEDI	APPELLANT	
	
And
		
	THE STATE
	RESPONDENT	
	CRIMINAL APPEAL
		
	MOGOENG JP & LANDMAN J		
	
DATE OF HEARING                                                   15 AUGUST 2008		
	DATE OF JUDGMENT                                               14 NOVEMBER 2008		
	FOR THE APPELLANT                                              ADV MOTSHWANE		
	FOR THE RESPONDENT                                           ADV MORE		
	JUDGMENT		

	LANDMAN J:

[4]	Only, Mr More, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, reacted. He submits that:

4.1 Section 309(1 )(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides that any person convicted of any offence by any lower court may, subject to leave to appeal being granted in terms of sections 309B or 309C, appeal against such conviction and sentence to the High Court having jurisdiction. Exceptions apply if the accused was:

"(i)    below the age of 14 years
(i)    at least 14 years of age but below the age of 16 years and was not assisted by a legal representative at the time of conviction in a regional court....".
4.2	He submitted that the appellant is not entitled to an automatic right of appeal. The appellant was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offence and he was represented by Mr Modise, a legal practitioner, during trial in the Regional Court.

4.4	The order was suspended for period of 6 months from the date of the order.
4.5	This decision led the legislature to enact the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 42 of 2003 which reinstated the requirement of leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence in the lower courts.

2007 (2) SACR 28 (CC). The challenge on this ground failed. The Court held that leave to appeal procedure is desirable because it allows unmeritorious appeals to be identified and prevented and therefore not result in a waste of judicial resources.

[5]	As the record is before this Court, this Court is entitled to treat it as a review. 
[6]	The following facts are relevant to sentence:
	The offence was premeditated, well planned and executed. The appellant and his companion had their victims under observation prior to the attack. They waited for them to reach a spot were nobody would witness the attack.
	The community is seriously prejudiced by the unlawful use of firearms.
	The offence of robbery is prevalent and rife.
	The appellant has a previous conviction of murder which was committed in 2003, a year before this incident.
	The appellant was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offence and his arrest.
	He attended Simpato Secondary School and was in grade 7 at the time of arrest.
	He has been in custody since the time of his arrest.
	The goods except a cellphone were recovered.
	He was assaulted by members of the community until he lost consciousness and was subsequently hospitalised.

[7]	In my opinion the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate induces a sense of shock. This court is free to interfere with the sentence.

[8]	In my opinion the sentence on count 1 should be reduced to 10 (ten) years imprisonment and the sentence on count 2 reduced to 5 (five) years imprisonment.

Both sentences to run concurrently.     [9]	In the result:
1.	The appeal is struck from the roll.
2.	The sentence on count 1 and count 2 is set aside and substituted with the following:

Count 1: Ten (10) years imprisonment Count Count 2:     Five (5) years imprisonment.

Both sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

A  A LANDMAN
JUDGE OF THE  HIGH COURT

I concur 

JUDGE PRESIDENT

Attorneys:

For the Appellant : Kgomo Mokhetle and Tlou 
For the Respondent :      The State Attorney