South Africa: High Courts - Eastern Cape
You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: High Courts - Eastern Cape >> 2008 >> [2008] ZAECHC 23 | Noteup | LawCiteS v Pieterson (20070779) [2008] ZAECHC 23 (25 February 2008)
Download original files | Bookmark/Share this page  |
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION)
REVIEW CASE NO: 20070779
DATE DELIVERED: 25/2/08
NOT REPORTABLE
In the matter between
THE STATE
and
RICHARD PIETERSON
JUDGMENT
PLASKET J:
[1] The accused was correctly convicted of stock theft, heaving been found by the magistrate, Aliwal North to have stolen a sheep. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, a sentence that was queried by Paterson AJ on the basis of it being out of line with what may be regarded as the usual sentence in a case of this kind in which the accused is a first offender.
[2] The magistrate has responded to the query. In effect, he says that what makes this case more serious than the usual is that the accused planned the slaughter and theft of the sheep, that he enlisted the assistance of another, that his accomplice is serving a prison sentence ‘due to accused’s influence on him’ and that because the accused was entrusted with looking after his employer’s sheep, his theft of one of them amounted to an abuse of the trust placed in him.
[3] The magistrate is of the view that the sentence be imposed is justified but that ‘a small portion’ should have been suspended. I am of the view that the sentence is not justified. It induces a sense of shock on account of its severity and must be set aside.
[4] The planning that went into the theft of the sheep was not of such a nature as to distinguish this case from the usual: the accused decided to steal a sheep, he asked his accomplice to help him, he went to fetch a knife, he took the sheep out of the kraal and slaughtered it. The magistrate’s view that the accused somehow influenced his accomplice to take part in the offence is not borne out by the record. The accomplice was a willing participant who tried to sell the meat of the slaughtered sheep. The accused’s breach of the trust reposed in him, although an aggravating factor, also is not sufficient to justify the sentence imposed by the magistrate.
[5] In all of these circumstances, and taking into account the accused’s personal circumstances – including that he is a first offender – I am of the view that a sentence of nine months imprisonment would be appropriate.
[6] The following order is made:
(a) The accused’s conviction is confirmed but his sentence is set aside.
(b) The sentence imposed by the magistrate is replaced with a sentence of nine months imprisonment backdated to 6 August 2007.
_______________
C. PLASKET
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree,
______________
J.C. FRONEMAN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT