Hansen v the Regional Magistrate, Cape Town and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Davis J
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1999
• Counsel: L Nortier for the applicant J Slabber for the second respondent No appearance for the first respondent
• Hearing Date: 14 May 1999
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Davis J:

On the 2 September 1993 applicant was convicted in the regional court, G Cape Town of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. He was declared a habitual criminal in terms of s 286(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. On 1 December 1995 an appeal was dismissed and thereafter he applied unsuccessfully for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. On 23 June 1997 his petition to the Chief Justice for leave to appeal was also dismissed. H

Applicant's brother was charged in respect of the same crime. He failed to appear in court having estreated bail. On 10 July he was finally convicted and sentenced by another court to a period of four years imprisonment of which two years was suspended and the remaining two years was subject to correctional supervision in terms of s 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Applicant now applies to this I court for relief on the basis of a new ground, namely the disparity of sentence imposed upon him compared to that imposed on his brother for the commission of the same crime. J

Davis J

Our courts have been prepared to interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial A court on the ground of a disturbing disparity between the sentence imposed on applicant and that imposed on a co-offender tried separately. In S v Giannoulis 1975 (4) SA 867 (A) Holmes JA said:

'where, however, there is a disturbing disparity in such sentences, and the degrees of participation are more or less equal, and there are not personal factors warranting such disparity, appellate B interference may, depending on the circumstances, be warranted. The ground of interference would be that the sentence is disturbingly inappropriate' (at 873G).

In S v Marx 1989 (1) SA 222 (A) at 225G Smalberger JA said, with reference to the judgment in Giannoulis (supra), C

'Hieruit blyk dit dat 'n Hof van Appèl nie 'n onbelemmerde diskresie het om in te meng met ongelyke vonnisse wat ten opsigte van 'n gelyke deelname aan dieselfde misdaad opgelê is nie. Inmenging kan alleenlik geskied volgens die riglyne neergelê in Giannoulis se saak. Soos blyk uit die tweede stelling, geskied inmenging waar die opgelegde vonnis ontstellend onvanpas ("disturbingly inappropriate") is.' D

Smalberger JA continued that only in exceptional circumstances can facts which become known after sentence has been passed be taken into account on appeal (at 226C). However, he then said:

'Waar gelyke misdadigers in aparte verhore verskillend gevonnis word, is dit vanselfsprekend dat E die vroeëre vonnis bekend sal wees wanneer die latere vonnis opgelê word. Daar kan dus behoorlik daarop ag geslaan word, ook later op appèl. Wat gebeur egter as die eerste vonnis die swaarder vonnis is? Kan die latere, ligter vonnis in aanmerking geneem word by die aanhoor van die appèl teen die vroeër, swaarder vonnis. Logies en in beginsel blyk daar geen grondige rede te wees waarom dit nie gedoen kan word nie. Trouens, dit sou afwykend wees, en tot onbillikhede lei, sou dit nie die geval wees nie.' (226D) F

Mr Slabbert, who appeared on behalf of second respondent...