S v F

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

S v F
1992 (2) SACR 13 (A)

1992 (2) SACR p13

Citation	1992 (2) SACR 13 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Hefer AR
Heard	March 17, 1992
Judgment	March 26, 1992
Counsel	B C Bredenkamp namens die appellant; Mej J C du Plessis namens die Staat

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde I

Verkragting — Vonnis — Doodvonnis — Wanneer die gepaste vonnis — Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 soos gewysig deur art 4 van Strafregwysigingswet 107 van 1990 — Appellant het klaagster na afgeleë J plek in veld

1992 (2) SACR p14

A ontvoer en daar verkrag — Klaagster wreed aangerand en het ernstige breinskade opgedoen as gevolg waarvan sy permanent verlam is — Appellant eerste oortreder, 24 jaar oud en van onder-gemiddelde intelligensie — Geen getuienis van verband tussen appellant se lae intelligensie en misdaad nie — Vooruitsigte vir rehabilitasie nie goed nie — Doodvonnis bekragtig. B

Headnote : Kopnota

Die appellant is in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling skuldig bevind aan verkragting en ter dood veroordeel. Sy appèl teen skuldigbevinding en vonnis is deur die Appèlafdeling van die hand gewys. Na die inwerkingtreding van die Strafregwysigingswet 107 van 1990 ('die Wet') het die paneel wat in terme daarvan aangestel is bevind dat die doodvonnis waarskynlik opgelê sou gewees het indien art 4 van die Wet ten tyde van vonnisoplegging in C werking was. Die saak is daarna ooreenkomstig art 19(12) van die Wet weer na die Appèlafdeling verwys, sodat dit die kwessie van vonnis opnuut kon beoordeel. Dit het uit die getuienis geblyk dat die appellant die klaagster deur valse voorwendsels oorreed het om in sy motor te klim en haar toe ontvoer het na 'n afgeleë plek in die veld. Alhoewel dit die D appellant se opset was om die klaagster te verkrag, was sy aanvanklike poging om die geslagsdaad te verrig onsuksesvol. Daarop het hy haar só erg aangerand dat sy haar bewussyn verloor het, en haar toe verkrag. Die klaagster was as gevolg van die aanranding vir 14 dae bewusteloos en het ernstige breinskade opgedoen, wat veroorsaak het dat sy onder andere permanent verlam is. Die appellant was 24 jaar oud toe hy die misdaad E gepleeg het. Hy is 'n persoon van onder-gemiddelde intelligensie en 'n eerste oortreder. Sy vooruitsigte op rehabilitasie is deur een van die psigiaters betrokke by sy waarneming as swak bestempel.

Beslis, dat daar geen verband te vinde was tussen die appellant se lae intelligensie en die misdaad wat hy gepleeg het nie.

Beslis, verder, dat die feit dat die appellant se frustrasie F voortspruitende uit sy aanvanklike onvermoë om die geslagsdaad te verrig waarskynlik bygedra het tot sy bykans dierlike geweld ook nie as versagting kon dien nie: dit lê nie in die mond van 'n gewelddadige verkragter om sy optrede te probeer verskoon aan die hand van sy eie fisiese onvermoë tot die bevrediging van sy wellus nie.

Beslis, verder, dat aangesien gevangenisstraf volgens die psigiatriese G getuienis waarskynlik geen reformatoriese effek sal hê nie, die ander oogmerke van strafoplegging deurslaggewend geword het.

Beslis, derhalwe, dat die doodvonnis in die onderhawige geval die enigste gepaste vonnis is. H

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Rape — Sentence — Death sentence — When the proper sentence — Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 as amended by s 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Act 107 of 1990 — Appellant abducting complainant and raping her in secluded spot in veld — Complainant severely assaulted and suffering serious brain damage as result of which permanently paralysed — Appellant a first I offender, 24 years old and of below average intelligence — No evidence of connection between appellant's low intelligence and offence — Prognosis for reformation bad — Death sentence confirmed.

Headnote : Kopnota

The appellant had been found guilty, in a Provincial Division, of rape and sentenced to death. His appeal against conviction and sentence was J dismissed by the Appellate Division. After the commencement of the

1992 (2) SACR p15

A Criminal Law Amendment Act 107 of 1990 ('the Act'), the panel appointed in terms thereof found that the death sentence would probably have been imposed had s 4 of the Act been in operation at the time sentence was passed. The case was thereafter, in terms of s 19(12) of the Act, again referred to the Appellate Division for its decision on sentence. It appeared from the evidence that the appellant had lured the complainant B into his car and taken her to a secluded spot in the veld. Although it had been the appellant's intention to rape the complainant, he had initially been unable to perform sexually. He then assaulted her so severely that she lost consciousness, after which he raped her. The complainant was unconscious for 14 days. She also sustained brain damage and was consequently permanently paralysed. The appellant was 24 years old when he C committed the offence. He was a person of below average intelligence and a first offender. A psychiatrist described the prospects for his rehabilitation as poor.

Held, that there was no evidence of any connection between the appellant's low intelligence and his conduct in the commission of the offence.

Held, further, that the fact that the appellant's inability to perform D sexually had probably contributed to the almost animal violence of his attack on the complainant could also not serve as mitigation: it ill behoved a violent rapist to attempt to excuse his conduct on the basis that he had been physically unable to gratify his lust.

Held, further, that inasmuch as imprisonment would, according to the psychiatric evidence, have no rehabilitative effect, the other objects of E punishment became decisive.

Held...