S v Matlotlo

• Judge: Shongwe J and Bosielo J
• Judgment Date: 06 January 2004
• Citation: 2004 (2) SACR 549 (T)
• Docket Number: E149/2003
• Hearing Date: 06 January 2004
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Bosielo J:

[1] The facts of this case may, at first glance, appear prosaic but the ultimate sentence imposed on the accused and the reasons advanced by the learned magistrate deserve serious consideration. The accused, a 25-year-old male was convicted on one count of shoplifting following upon his plea of guilty. The value of the stolen items is H estimated to be a paltry R50. Despite his plea for a lenient sentence, the accused was sentenced to direct imprisonment for three years.

[2] When the matter first came before me on automatic review, I had grave misgivings about the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the accused. I then sent a query to the magistrate in the I following terms:

'1.

The learned magistrate is respectfully requested to furnish reasons for the sentence imposed on the accused, which appears prima facie to be disturbingly disproportionate to the offence committed by the accused. J

Bosielo J

2.

In view of the accused's previous convictions for similar offences, was it not prudent for the magistrate to procure a A pre-sentence report by an appropriate expert with a view to obtaining a full report about the accused's pathology and possible recommendations about an appropriate sentence?'

[3] I feel obliged to state, in fairness to the magistrate, that my query served as a necessary fillip to galvanise her into real B action. Her comprehensive and well-researched response attests to hours of hard work and research. However, the essence of her response is that she still maintains, primarily but not exclusively, that due to the accused's five previous convictions for similar offences, the sentence of imprisonment for three years is appropriate. Although two senior advocates from the Director of Public Prosecutions seem to be in unison C with the sentence imposed on the accused, particularly the ratio for the sentence, they ultimately recommend interference with the sentence in a manner, which will result in half of the sentence being suspended on suitable conditions. For reasons, which follow hereunder, I do not agree with the suggestions made by the D office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

[4] It is clear from the accused's records of previous convictions that he has a serious pathology. He is clearly a kleptomaniac. The accused's first conviction for theft was on 7 June 1999 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months, which was wholly suspended for five years on...