IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between: 
THE STATE 
and

SENTENCE

IMMELMAN, AJ

I come now to the matter of sentence. The State has proved only one previous conviction, being conviction of accused 2 on 31 March 1994 of housebreaking of business premises with the intent to steal and theft of goods to the value of R28 000, committed on 22 December 1993. In respect of this conviction accused 2 received a sentence of imprisonment for three years under correctional supervision by the Commissioner, in terms of Section 276( 1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is noteworthy for purposes of sentence that the present offences were committed by accused 2 only about one year after the but for the meeting on the day in question with accused 2, who had a pre-arranged appointment with the deceased, accused 1 would not have had any contact at all with the deceased who was in fact a stranger to him.

As for his personal circumstances the Court takes account of the fact that accused 1 is a first offender. Indeed his lack of a criminal record serves to underscore his inexperience in matters criminal and in some measure to support the conclusion of an induced proclivity towards criminal activity under the dominating influence of accused 2. His upbringing and history as indicated by the evidence of his mother, Mrs Onrust, reveal anything but the picture of a deprived, unloving or uncaring family background or of hardship. If anything her evidence shows that he was in fact spoilt. Significantly this evidence shows the absence of any need on his part to resort to criminal behaviour in order to acquire property and reveals an overlying motivation of simple greed.

The third factor to be considered in the case of accused 1 is the interests of society. In this I include the interests of the loving and close-knit family members of the deceased on whom his unnecessary death at such a young age has had a most profound effect. Under this head the Court takes into account that in recent times this country has been ravaged and is still being ravaged by a wave of crime, the likes and prevalence and extent of which is virtually unparalleled and unprecedented at any other period. Serious crimes which include murder and robbery have become the order of the day. So common place have they become that the long-suffering citizens of this country cry out so far and no further. Their demand is that the Courts of this country do their utmost to put an end to this wave of crime, which undermines the very fabric of orderly civilised society and to protect them through the imposition of stringent sentences.

I pass on now to consideration of the case of accused 2. The nature and severity of the crimes committed by him have already been dealt with at some length. In his case there are no factors which ameliorate his moral blameworthiness. On the contrary there are factors present which go the other direction, which aggravate the seriousness of his crimes and his moral blameworthiness therein. These are the following:

3)     Accused 2 played the dominant role in the attack on the deceased and in the succeeding events.