S v V en 'n Ander

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1989 (1) SA 532 (A)

S v V en 'n Ander
1989 (1) SA 532 (A)

1989 (1) SA p532

Citation	1989 (1) SA 532 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Joubert AR, M T Steyn AR, Eksteen AR
Heard	September 15, 1988
Judgment	September 30, 1988

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Strafreg — Verkragting — Vonnis — Versagtende faktore — Tweede appellant tot ses jaar gevangenisstraf en daarbenewens lyfstraf van vyf houe gevonnis — Jeugdige van 17 jaar en 11 maande ten tyde C van die misdryf, meer as jaar jonger as sy jongste mede-beskuldigde — Gedrag hoofsaaklik aan onvolwassenheid te wyte — Vatbaar vir beïnvloeding ten kwade deur oueres — Afwesigheid van elemente van onnodige en wrede geweld — Twee jaar van die gevangenisstraf van tweede appellant voorwaardelik opgeskort en lyfstraf tersyde gestel.

D Strafproses — Vonnis — Lyfstraf — Gekoppel aan lang termyn gevangenisstraf — Vernederende en fisies pynlike bestraffing — Moet met groot omsigtigheid opgelê word — Tempering in die beskouing aangaande lyfstraf — Ongewens en self ongeoorloof om lyfstraf aan lang termyn gevangenisstraf te koppel — Dien geen aanvaarbare doel E nie — Geen omstandigheid in huidige geval om dit te regverdig nie — Lyfstraf ten aansien van albei appellante tersyde gestel.

Headnote : Kopnota

Appellante is saam met ander beskuldigdes in die Johannesburgse streeklanddroshof weens twee aanklagte van verkragting skuldig bevind F en op elkeen gevonnis tot drie jaar gevangenisstraf wat nie saamlopend was nie en daarbenewens lyfstraf van vyf houe. Die twee aanklagte is as een geneem vir doeleindes van die vonnis van lyfstraf. 'n Appèl teen hulle skuldigbevindings en vonnisse is deur die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling afgewys maar verlof is aan hulle verleen om teen hul vonnise te appelleer.

Beslis, dat die verhoorhof nie genoegsame oorweging geskenk het aan die feit dat tweede appellant, op die ouderdom van 17 jaar en 11 maande G ten tyde van die pleging van die misdaad, meer as 'n jaar jonger was as sy jongste medebeskuldigde, dat sy gedrag dié aand hoofsaaklik aan onvolwassenheid te wyte was, en dat hy, weens sy ouderdom, vatbaar was vir beïnvloeding ten kwade deur oueres, wat almal welbekende strafversagtende omstandighede was: die element van onnodige en wrede geweld was in die huidige geval ook afwesig.

Beslis, derhalwe, dat twee jaar van die tweede appellant se gevangenisstraf voorwaardelik opgeskort moes word.

H Beslis, verder, dat lyfstraf uiteraard 'n erg vernederende en fisies baie pynlik vorm van bestraffing was en met groot omsigtigheid opgelê behoort te word en slegs wanneer òf die persoonlike omstandighede van die beskuldigde òf die aard en omstandighede van die misdaad dit duidelik regverdig: op jeugdiges word dit opgelê om hulle uit die tronk te hou en op volwassenes waar daar 'n besondere mate van wrede geweld by die pleging van die misdaad is.

I Beslis, verder, dat daar vir 'n geruime tyd egter reeds 'n al groter wordende mate van tempering in die beskouing aangaande lyfstraf te bespeur was: dit het geblyk uit verskeie uitsprake; die vermindering van die maksimum ouderdom vir oplegging daarvan na 30 jaar, en die invoeging gedurende 1986 van die voorbehoudsbepaling tot art 292(1) van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977; en daardie steeds meer temperende ontwikkeling het ook die siening al meer te vore laat kom dat dit ongewens en selfs ongeoorloofd is om lyfstraf aan 'n lang termyn J van gevangenisstraf te koppel want dit dien geen aanvaarbare doel nie.

1989 (1) SA p533

A Beslis, verder, dat daar ook niks in die huidige saak was wat so 'n vonnis regverdig het nie en dat die lyfstraf van albei appellante derhalwe tersyde gestel moes word.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal law — Rape — Sentence — Mitigating factors — Second appellant sentenced to six years' imprisonment and in addition whipping of five strokes — Juvenile of 17 years and 11 months at the time of B the offence, more than a year younger than his youngest co-accused — Behaviour chiefly attributable to immaturity — Vulnerability to bad influence by older persons — Absence of element of unnecessary and cruel violence — Two years of second appellant's sentence of imprisonment conditionally suspended and whipping set aside.

Criminal procedure — Sentence — Whipping — Linked to long term of imprisonment — Humiliating and physically painful punishment — Should be imposed with great circumspection — Tempering in attitude C to whipping — Undesirable and even wrong to link whipping to long term of imprisonment — Serves no acceptable end — No circumstances in present case justifying it — Sentence of whipping in respect of both appellants set aside.

Headnote : Kopnota

Appellants together with other accused were each convicted in the Johannesburg regional magistrate's court on two counts of rape and D on each count sentenced to three years' imprisonment, not to run concurrently, and in addition to whipping of five strokes. The two counts were treated as one for the purpose of the sentence of whipping. An appeal against their convictions and sentences was dismissed by the Transvaal Provincial Division but leave was granted to appeal against their sentences.

Held, that the trial court had not accorded sufficient consideration to the fact that the second appellant, at the age 17 years and 11 E months old, was at the time of the commission of the offence more than a year younger than his youngest co-accused; that his behaviour that night was chiefly attributable to immaturity and vulnerability to bad influence by older persons, all of which were well-known mitigating factors: the element of unnecessary and cruel violence was also absent in this instance.

Held, accordingly, that two years of the second appellant's term F of imprisonment should be conditionally suspended.

Held, further, that whipping was by its nature an extremely humiliating and physically very painful form of punishment and ought to be imposed with great circumspection and only when either the personal circumstances of the accused or the nature and circumstances of the crime clearly justified it: it was imposed on juveniles to keep them out of gaol and on adults where there was a significant degree of G cruel violence in the commission of the crime.

Held, further, that there had for some time already been a growing degree of temperance discernible in the attitude to corporal punishment: this appeared from various judgments, the lowering of the maximum age for the imposition thereof to 30 years, and the introduction during 1986 of the proviso to s 292(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977; and this further tempering development had also seen the view increasingly come to the fore that it was undesirable and even ill-advised to couple corporal punishment to a long term of imprisonment because it served H no acceptable end.

Held, further, that there was nothing in the present case justifying such a sentence and therefore the corporal punishment imposed on both appellants had to be set aside. I

Case Information

Appel teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (Van der Walt R en Van der Merwe R) waarvolgens die appellante se appelle teen hulle skuldigbevindings en vonnisse in 'n streeklanddroshof afgewys is. Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van M T Steyn AR.

P Yutar SC (bygestaan deur A Sawyer) namens die appellante het na J die volgende gesag verwys: R v Swanepoel 1945 AD 444; S v Roux 1975 (3) SA

1989 (1) SA p534

A 190 (A); R v Mkize 1953 (2) SA 324 (A) op 335 - 6; R v Sibande 1958 (3) SA 1 (A) op 6E - G; R v Z 1960 (1) SA 739 (A) op 745B; R v Mlambo 1960 (2) SA 55 (W); S v Mharadzo 1966 (2) SA 702 (RA) op 704; S v Van der Berg 1968 (3) SA 250 (A) op 252F; S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A); S v Whitehead 1970 (4) SA 424 (A) op 429; S v Shangase and Others 1972 (2) SA 410 (N) op 422E - F; S v Molale 1973 (4) SA 725 (O) op 726; S v B Jansen and Another 1975 (1) SA 425 (A); S v Maimela 1976 (2) SA 587 (A); S v M 1976 (3) SA 644 (A) op 648; S v Mapatsi 1976 (4) SA 721 (A) op 724; S v Ceasar 1977 (2) SA 348 (A) op 353; S v Runds 1978 (4) SA 304 (A) op 312; S v Serumala 1978 (4) SA 811 (NK); S v Holder 1979 (2) SA 70 (A) op 75; S v Ngubane 1980 (2) SA 741 (A) op 746A - B; S v M 1982 (1) SA 589 (A) C op 593A - D; S v Ngoma 1984 (3) SA 666 (A) op 674.

J J Pelser namens die Staat het na die volgende gesag verwys: R v Swanepoel 1945 AD 444; R v Mkize 1953 (2) SA 324 (A); R v Sibande 1958 (3) SA 1 (A); R v Z 1960 (1) SA 739 (A); R v Mlambo 1960 (2) SA 55 (W); R v Karg 1961 (1) SA 231 (A) op 236B; S v Mharadzo 1966 (2) SA 702 (RA); S v Van der Berg 1968 (3) SA 250 (A); S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A); S D v Victor 1970 (1) SA 427 (A); S v Whitehead 1970 (4) SA 424 (A); S v Shangase and Others 1972 (2) SA 410 (N); S v Molale 1973 (4) SA 725 (O); S v Jansen and Another 1975 (1) SA 425 (A); S v Hlongwana 1975 (4) SA 567 (A); S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A) op 857C - F; S v Maimela 1976 (2) SA 587 (A); S v M 1976 (3) SA 644 (A); S v Mapatsi 1976 (4) SA 721 (A) E op 724A - C; S v Ceasar 1977 (2) SA 348 (A) op 353C - F; S v Runds 1978 (4) SA 304 (A); S v Serumala 1978 (4) SA 811 (NK); S v Holder 1979 (2) SA 70 (A); S v Ngubane 1980 (2) SA 741 (A); S v Matoma 1981 (3) SA 838 (A); S v M 1982 (1) SA 589 (A); S v Ngoma 1984 (3) SA 666 (A) op 674E; S v Motsoesoana 1986 (3) SA 350 (N); Hiemstra Suid-Afrikaanse F Strafproses 4de uitg.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (September 30).

Judgment

M T Steyn AR:

Hierdie is 'n appèl teen vonnis.

G Die appellante is op 3 April 1984 in die Johannesburgse streekhof weens verkragting elk gevonnis tot ses jaar gevangenisstraf en daarbenewens tot lyfstraf van vyf houe. Hulle het tesame met drie mede-beskuldigdes in daardie hof tereggestaan op twee aanklagte van verkragting (aanklagte 1 en 2), 'n aanklag van oortreding van H art 25(1)(a) van die Polisiewet 7 van 1958 (aanklag 3), en van roof...