IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(WES-KAAP HOE HOF, KAAPSTAD)
					SAAKNOMMER:A362/2010
					DATUM: 3 September 2010

In die saak tussen:

en

UITSPRAAK

Die pleit illustreer die basis van die oortreding en derhalwe is dit belangrik vir die doeleindes van vonnis:

Die landdros, in sy uitspraak, het die volgende gese:

Dit is gemene saak dat in hierdie saak die voorgeskrewe minimum vonnis is van toepassing op die klagte. Volgens artikel 51(2) van Wet 105 van 1997:

"Notwithstanding any other law, but subject to subsections (3) and (6), a regional court or a High Court, including a High Court to which a matter has been referred under section 52(1) for sentence, (indistinct) in respect to a person who have been convicted of an offence, refer to in a Part II of Schedule 2, sentence the person in the case: (i) First offender imprisonment for a period not less than 15 years."

"If any Court referred to in subsection (1) or (2) decides to impose a sentence described in those subsections upon a child who was 16 years of age or older, but under the age of 18, at the time of the commission of the act, which constitutes the offence in question, it shall enter the reasons for its decision on the records of the proceedings."

"Now the word misdirection in the present context simply means an error committed by the Court in determining or applying the facts for assessing the appropriate sentence. A mere misdirection is not by itself sufficient to entitle the appeal court to interfere with the sentence. It must be of such a nature, degree or seriousness that it shows directly or inferentially that the Court did not exercise its discretion at all, or exercise it improperly or unreasonably, such a misdirection is usually and conveniently termed one that vitiates the Court's decision or sentence."