S v Ramabata en 'n Ander

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 22 November 1988
• Citation: 1989 (2) SA 96 (A)

S v Ramabata en 'n Ander
1989 (2) SA 96 (A)

1989 (2) SA p96

Citation	1989 (2) SA 96 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	van Heerden AR, Kumleben AR, Eksteen AR
Heard	November 4, 1988
Judgment	November 22, 1988

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G

Strafreg — Moord — Vonnis — Ouderdom van oortreder — Belangrikheid van ouderdomsbepaling — Distriksgeneesheer se ondersoek om ouderdom van oortreder te bepaal slegs uit hoofde van tandontwikkeling en algemene voorkoms en liggaamsbou kom as betreklik oppervlakkig voor — Nie voldoende om met enige redelik graad van H sekerheid iemand se ouderdom vas te stel nie — Onsekerheid as gevolg daarvan moet tot oortreder se voordeel strek — Oortreder kan nie beskou word asof hy ten tye van die pleging van die moord oor die ouderdom van 18 jaar was nie — Doodvonnis in die afwesigheid van versagtende omstandighede dus nie verpligtend nie — Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 art 277(2). I

Headnote : Kopnota

Die twee appellante, albei jong manne, is in die Rondgaande Hof te Tzaneen albei skuldig bevind op aanklagte van moord en roof met verswarende omstandighede. Op die moordaanklag het die Hof geen versagtende omstandighede bevind nie. Albei is deur die distriksgeneesheer ondersoek en hy het slegs op grond van hulle tandontwikkeling en algemene voorkoms en liggaamsbou tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat hulle ten tye van die pleging van die moord J waarskynlik 'n bietjie ouer as 18 jaar sou gewees het en hulle ouderdomme op 20 jaar geskat. In die afwesigheid

1989 (2) SA p97

A van versagtende omstandighede is albei toe ter dood veroordeel maar verlof is aan hulle verleen om teen die doodvonnis te appelleer.

Beslis, dat waar iemand wat moontlik jonger as 18 jaar oud op 'n aanklag van moord terreggestaan het en daar geen versagtende omstandighede deur die Hof bevind kon word nie, dit van wesenlike belang was, in die lig van die bepalings van art 277(2) van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977, wat bepaal dat waar iemand onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar aan moord skuldig bevind word met geen versagtende omstandighede, 'n Hof die B bevoegdheid het om 'n ander vonnis as die doodvonnis op te lê, om die ouderdom van die persoon met soveel noukeurigheid as moontlik vas te stel.

Beslis, verder, dat, anders as by bewys van versagtende omstandighede, waar die bewyslas op die beskuldigde rus, dieselfde benadering nie gegeld het by die bepaling van die ouderdom van 'n beskuldigde nie.

Beslis, verder, dat 'n ondersoek om appellante se ouderdomme te C probeer bepaal slegs uit hoofde van hulle tandontwikkeling en algemene voorkoms en liggaamsbou as betreklik oppervlakkig voorgekom het en nie voldoende was om met enige graad van sekerheid iemand se ouderdom vas te stel nie: die distriksgeneesheer se gevolgtrekking dat die appellante 'n bietjie ouer as 18 jaar waarskynlik sou gewees het, het by implikasie nie die moontlikheid dat hulle jonger as 18 jaar ten tye van die moord kon gewees het, uitgesluit nie en die onsekerheid as gevolg daarvan moes D tot hulle voordeel gestrek het.

Beslis, verder, dat die appellante nie beskou kon word as ouer as 18 jaar ten tye van die moord nie en dus was die Hof nie regtens verplig, in die afwesigheid van versagtende omstandighede, om die doodvonnis op te lê nie. Die vonnisse van beide appellante is verander na 15 jaar gevangenisstraf. E

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal law — Murder — Sentence — Age of offender — Importance of determining age — District surgeon's examination to determine the offender's age from development of teeth and general appearance and build only appears relatively superficial — Not sufficient to determine age with any reasonable degree of certainty — Uncertainty as a result thereof must be to the benefit of the offender — Cannot be regarded as having been over 18 years at the time of the F perpetration of the crime — Death sentence therefore not obligatory in absence of extenuating circumstances — Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s 277(2).

Headnote : Kopnota

The two appellants, both young men, were both found guilty in the Circuit Court at Tzaneen on charges of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. On the murder charge the Court found no G extenuating circumstances. Both were examined by the district surgeon and he came to the conclusion, based on the development of their teeth and their general appearance and build only, that they were probably a little older than 18 years at the time of the perpetration of the murder and estimated their ages at 20 years. In the absence of extenuating circumstances both were sentenced to death on the murder charge but leave to appeal against sentence was granted.

Held, that, where someone who was possibly younger than 18 years H was convicted on a charge of murder and no extenuating circumstances could be found by the Court, it was of fundamental importance, in the light of the provisions of s 277(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 which provided that, where someone under the age of 18 was found guilty of murder without extenuating circumstances, the Court was empowered to impose a sentence other than the death sentence, to determine the person's age as precisely as possible.

Held, further, that, otherwise than was the case with the proof I of extenuating circumstances where the onus of proof rested on the accused, the same approach did not apply in establishing the accused's age.

Held, further, that an examination to attempt to determine appellants' ages on the basis only of the development of their teeth and general appearance and build appeared relatively superficial and was not sufficient to determine their ages with any reasonable degree of certainty: the district surgeon's conclusion that appellants J were probably a little older than 18 years by implication did not exclude the

1989 (2) SA p98

A possibility that they could have been under the age of 18 at the time of the perpetration of the murder and the resultant uncertainty had to be to their benefit.

Held, futher, that the appellants could not be regarded as having been older than 18 years at the time of the murder and the Court was therefore not legally bound in the absence of extenuating circumstances to impose the death sentence. The sentences of both appellants were altered to 15 years' imprisonment.

Case Information B

Appèl teen doodvonnisse in die Rondgaande Hof te Tzaneen opgelê (De Villiers R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Eksteen AR.

A Treurnicht namens die eerste appellant op versoek van die Hof. C

C E More namens die tweede appellant op versoek van die Hof het na die volgende gesag verwys: S v Mkize 1979 (1) SA 461 (A); S v Ndlovu 1970 (1) SA 430 (A); S v Khumalo 1968 (4) SA 284 (T); S v Lehnberg en 'n Ander 1975 (4) SA 553 (A); S v Ceaser 1977 (2) SA 348 (A); S v Ngoma D 1984 (3) SA 666 (A); S v Manyathi 1967 (1) SA 435 (A); S v Ndwanlane 1985 (3) SA 222 (A); S v Mzinyane and Others 1988 (2) SA 151 (A); Small v Smith 1954 (3) SA 434 (SWA); S v Naik 1969 (2) SA 231 (N); R v Blom 1939 AD 188.

F E Roets namens die Staat het na die volgende gesag verwys: R v Balla and Others 1955 (3) SA 274 (A) op 275; S v Babada 1964 (1) SA 26 (A) op 27H - 28A; S v Bowers 1971 (4) SA 646 (A) op 649A; S Burger 1975 (4) SA 877 (A) E op 800H; S v Ceaser 1977 (2) SA 348 (A) op...