S v Sokweliti

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Transkei Division
• Judge: Miller AJP and Jafta J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2001
• Citation: 2002 (1) SACR 632 (Tk)
• Hearing Date: 30 April 2001

Jafta J:

[1] The accused appeared before the magistrate at Ngqeleni on a charge of dealing in dagga. Having been advised of her right to legal representation, she elected to conduct her own defence. When the charge was put to her, she pleaded guilty whereupon the magistrate questioned her in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act J

Jafta J

51 of 1977. Pursuant to the questioning she was convicted and sentenced A to six months' imprisonment plus a fine of R2 500 wholly suspended for three years on condition that she was not convicted of possession or dealing in prohibited drugs in contravention of s 4(b) or 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992.

[2] The conviction appears to be in order and should be confirmed. When the record of the proceedings was placed before me on review I B asked the magistrate whether it was competent to impose a sentence of imprisonment plus a fine and what would happen in the event of the accused not paying the fine after serving the initial period of imprisonment should the suspended sentence be brought into operation. The magistrate has given detailed and lucid reasons for which he must C be commended. It is indeed a rarity in this Division to receive such well researched and articulate contentions in response to a query.

[3] In his reply the magistrate states that it is competent to impose a sentence of imprisonment plus a fine. For this contention reliance is placed upon the provisions of s 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 which state that the penalty D for dealing in drugs shall be imprisonment for period not exceeding 25 years or to both such imprisonment and such fine as the court may deem fit to impose. It is quite clear that the trial court is given the discretion no decide what would be the appropriate sentence in a particular case within the defined options of a fine or imprisonment or both imprisonment and a fine. Therefore I agree with the magistrate E that it is competent for the trial court to impose a fine in addition to a sentence of imprisonment.

[4] However, the question that arises in this matter is whether such sentence is not excessive in the circumstances of the present case. The accused is a young woman whose age was determined by the doctor to be between 18 and 22 years. She is a first offender and she F was convicted of dealing in dagga weighing 5,8 kg. It appears from the answers she gave to the magistrate, which were not disputed by the State...