S v Matlala

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Howie JA, Marais JA and Schutz JA
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2002
• Citation: 2003 (1) SACR 80 (SCA)
• Docket Number: 320/2001
• Hearing Date: 22 May 2002
• Counsel: G J M Wright for the appellant, instructed by the the Legal Aid Board (heads of argument prepared by A J Coetzee). J P Krause for the the State (heads of argument prepared by A G J van Rensburg).
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal

Howie JA:

[1] The appellant was convicted in the High Court at Pretoria of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. For these four offences he was sentenced to 40 years', 15 years', three H years' and one year's imprisonment respectively. The last three sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on the murder charge. Having passed sentence the learned trial Judge (Grobbelaar J) recommended that the appellant not be considered for parole before he had served 30 years of the effective sentence. I

[2] With the leave of this Court the appellant appeals against the sentence of imprisonment for 40 years. In his notice of application in the Court below for leave to appeal the attack was focused on what was called the effective sentence. The appeal could just as well be seen as directed solely at the sentence for murder. J

Howie JA

[3] The offences were committed in the course of an armed A robbery. It occurred in the early evening of 21 February 1995 when the deceased, a shopkeeper at Mamelodi East, was preparing to close down for the day. When he went outside to shut the gate to his property he was waylaid by the appellant and two other men. He was shot three times. He died in hospital two weeks later. The appellant entered the B shop carrying a firearm and held up the deceased's assistant. He tried to break the telephone and warned her not to try using it. He searched the premises for money, eventually rifling the till of the cash-register. As he was about to depart, his accomplices appeared carrying the deceased. They threw him to the ground and the gang made off. C

[4] At the time of these events the appellant was 25 years of age. He was the eldest of six children, all dependent on their mother's earnings from her employment. The appellant secured temporary paid work while still at school but was unemployed after that.

[5] He gave no evidence to explain his involvement in the D robbery or to attempt to mitigate his contribution. It must be inferred that he knew beforehand that possible killing was an element of the raid and that the raid was pre-planned. What prompted it - money to live on or money for idle pursuits - the Court was never told. Doubtless the appellant's poor and humble domestic origins would have rendered him susceptible to participation. However, what actually made him cross the E ...