IN DIE HOE HOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA

(WES-KAAP HOE HOF. KAAPSTAD)

In die saak tussen:

en

UITSPRAAK

Die appellant was ten tye van die voorval 52 jaar oud. Hy is getroud en het vier kinders wat onderskeidelik 12, 20, 24 en 26 jaar oud is. Die appellant het gevorder tot St.3 op skool en woon sy lewe lank in die area van Malmesbury. Nadat hy die skool verlaat het, het hy algemene tuinwerk verrig.

"A court exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot, in the absence of material misdirection by the trial court, approach the question of sentence as if it were the trial court and then substitute the sentence arrived at by it simply because it prefers it. To do so would be to usurp the sentencing discretion of the trial court...However, even in the absence of material misdirection, an appellate court may yet be justified in interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial court. It may do so when the disparity between the sentence of the trial court and the sentence which the appellate Court would have imposed had it been the trial court is so marked that it can properly be described as 'shocking', 'startling' or 'disturbingly inappropriate'."

Dit volg dat die appel teen vonnis nie kan slaag nie en in die gevolg word die volgende bevel gemaak:-

KLOPPER.WnR:   Ek stem saam.

KLOPPER, WnR
LE GRANGE. R:   Dit word so gelas.