Case Law[2022] ZAWCHC 224South Africa
S v Kasongo (CC110/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 224; 2023 (1) SACR 321 (WCC) (4 November 2022)
Headnotes
the deceased on her wrists so tight that she suffered abrasions when he held her in a room, away from visiting friends. The court also found that the accused held on to the deceased’ phone and refused to hand it back, and the deceased never received her phone back from the accused since he took it from where the deceased had left it in the lounge. The accused stabbed the deceased 11 times with a knife including on her head, back, left arm and side of the abdomen and the deceased died from the injuries from that stabbing. There were abrasions on her breasts, finger and right elbow.
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAWCHC 224
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## S v Kasongo (CC110/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 224; 2023 (1) SACR 321 (WCC) (4 November 2022)
S v Kasongo (CC110/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 224; 2023 (1) SACR 321 (WCC) (4 November 2022)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2022_224.html
sino date 4 November 2022
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NO: CC110/2019
In
the matter between
THE
STATE
V
MUEPA
PAUL KASONGO
JUDGMENT
ON SENTENCE delivered 04 November 2022
THULARE
J
[1] The accused was
convicted of three counts, to wit, assault with intent to do grievous
bodily harm, theft, and murder read with
the provisions of section
51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (CLAA) as
amended. The accused strangled, bit and
held the deceased on her
wrists so tight that she suffered abrasions when he held her in a
room, away from visiting friends. The
court also found that the
accused held on to the deceased’ phone and refused to hand it
back, and the deceased never received
her phone back from the accused
since he took it from where the deceased had left it in the lounge.
The accused stabbed the deceased
11 times with a knife including on
her head, back, left arm and side of the abdomen and the deceased
died from the injuries from
that stabbing. There were abrasions on
her breasts, finger and right elbow.
[2] In order to assist
with sentencing, the defence asked for a pre-sentence report which
was prepared and presented by the probation
officer, Ms S Parks. Over
and above the submissions of counsel from the bar, the personal
circumstances of the accused were placed
on record through that
report and also through the testimony of his mother. He is the second
born child and the only son with four
siblings. He is 23 years old
and comes from a stable family. His parents moved from the Democratic
Republic of Congo and settled
in Cape Town, South Africa. The accused
was born and raised in SA. The accused is a first offender.
[3] Both the probation
officer and his mother described him as very supportive to his
sisters and that he took special care of the
last sibling, S[....]
who was 9 years old, including assisting her with her school work.
The family provided a positive upbringing
with no history of trauma
or abuse and had Christian-based values and principles. They also
both described him as a quiet person
who did not have a loud voice
and was not known to be violent. The mother indicated that she was
never called to school or any
institution for any bad behaviour of
untoward conduct by the accused. The mother was in total disbelieve
that it was her son who
was guilty of such a gruesome offence.
[4] The accused was a
social drinker, enjoying outings to wine farms and socializing with
friends and had no history of substance
abuse. There was no
indication that on the day that he committed the assault and theft,
or on the day that he committed the murder,
he was intoxicated or was
under the influence of any prohibited substances. He attended school
in Maitland and Kensington areas.
He went to St. John’s RC
Primary School and Maitland High School. He studied Visual
Communication and Graphic Designing at
the Cape Peninsula University
of Technology and after a year moved to Architecture. He quit the
course when he could not adjust
to online learning. He worked part
time at Teleperformers and later at XL Events and did modelling
part-time and he met the deceased,
who was a model, through
modelling. The accused contributed towards the household when he
earned money. His mother described him
as a responsible young man who
always made the family proud.
[5] The probation officer
referred to Erik Erikson’s theory of psycho-social development
and the eight stages of development
which were infancy, early
childhood, preschool, school age, adolescence, young adulthood,
middle adulthood and maturity. The accused
at 23 years was considered
to be in the sixth stage with focus on the key theme of intimacy and
isolation. During this phase individuals
built long term love
relationships that felt safe. Lacking the security and warmth of
loving relationships, individuals in this
phase were more likely to
experience loneliness and depression.
[6] From the judgment of
the court on the merits, the probation officer formed an opinion that
the deceased refused contact with
the accused and was fearful of him.
The indication was that the deceased terminated her relationship with
the accused. The probation
officer formed the opinion that the
accused experienced great difficulty in terms of dealing with this
form of rejection from the
deceased. The accused persisted to make
amends whilst the deceased tried her best to avoid the accused. The
probation officer expressed
the view that should the accused have
respected the wishes of the deceased to have distance between them,
this brutal crime could
have been prevented.
[7] The probation officer
noted that the accused stemmed from a stable background with firm
Christian-based values and principles
and it was unfortunate that his
life spiraled in this manner. He was young and had the ability to
thrive should he apply himself
positively. He was, however, convicted
of serious and violent-based offences involving assault and murder of
a woman he was romantically
involved with. The probation officer
considered that the country ranked third in the world concerning the
crime rate, with this
information sourced from Crime Index for
Country, 2020 and that violent-based crimes against women and
children were rife in the
country. The deceased endured a vicious
death as she was stabbed eleven times. The accused accepted
responsibility, except for
the count of theft, and was remorseful.
[8] The probation officer
recommended the sentence as envisaged in section 276(1)(b) or (i) of
the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977
(Act No. 51 of 1977) (the CPA). Her
view was that these sentences provided a stronger measure of
retribution. She also noted that
such a sentence could afford the
accused the opportunity to address any social challenges whilst
serving the period of imprisonment.
She noted that the Department of
Correctional Services worked in a holistic manner as it had a
multi-disciplinary team consisting
of Social Workers, Psychologists,
Educators etc. She also noted that such a sentence would meet the
seriousness of the offence
and would offer the accused an opportunity
to reflect on his unacceptable behaviour and conduct. She observed
that the State had
a responsibility to protect the public and to
ensure that justice was served. Her view was that the position of the
victims of
this offence should also be taken into consideration in
sentencing. The family endured suffering endured because of the
trauma
that they had been subjected to. Her opinion was that a
sentence of direct imprisonment will send a clear message that such
violent
based offences will not be tolerated. She recommended a
custodial sentence.
[9] Most of what the
accused mother told the court was covered in the probation officer’s
report. The mother’s main
observation was that the accused, in
committing the offences for which he was convicted, acted out of
character of the calm and
sweet boy she had raised. She knew her son
as someone who once rebuked her for attempting to kill an insect
which had become a
nuisance in the house, arguing that it was also a
creation of God and need to live and the mother should let it leave.
If it was
a nuisance, the best way to deal with it was to open for it
to leave the house instead of killing it. She pleaded for mercy and
that her son be given a second chance. She had stopped the accused
from going to the deceased family soon after he was released
on bail,
as she felt it was too soon and their wound from their loss was still
too fresh for his reception. She intended to make
time and reach out
to the family of the deceased once everything is settled.
[10] The probation
officer also met with the deceased’s sister who was badly
affected by the death. She had to seek student
counselling as she was
unable to cope with academic work as a student at Nelson Mandela Bay
University. Shamiela Omar was the neighbor
of the accused. She went
to the same primary school with the accused and knew his family very
well. The accused was a very helpful
person. Not only did he assist
her child with school projects, but he was available to provide
resources to help her ends meet
when the need arose. She could
confide in him more than she could in her own blood sister. Although
the accused had told her that
he was arrested in relation to a fight
with his girlfriend and that things ended badly, he did not elaborate
and she did not know
what the accused was alleged to have done, until
recently. She was shocked to learn about what the accused was alleged
to have
done.
[11] Bongekile Khumalo
attended the same church with the accused and she was a pastor
assistant whilst the accused was involved
in the media team. She
joined the church in 2019. She knew the accused as a sweet and
compassionate person. The accused was fun
to have around and was very
respectful. Although she was young and a woman the accused did not
find difficulty in submitting to
her authority at the church. The
church had been informed that the accused faced a charge of murder
and asked to pray for him in
intercession. She was too junior in the
church to know if the accused had disclosed to the elders what
actually happened. She only
came to know what is alleged the accused
did, about two weeks ago, and it was a shock to her. It was not
consistent with the person
she knew. She was trying to come to terms
to understand how it happened.
[12] The State led the
evidence of Professor Naeemah Abrahams, who is in the Division of
Social and Behavioral Sciences, School
of Public Health and Family
Medicine at the University of Cape Town (UCT). She is the Director of
the Gender & Health Research
Unit of the South African Medical
Research Council. She had training in Social epidemiology and have
worked for more than 30 years
as a researcher on interpersonal
violence and gender-based violence. Her areas of expertise included
research on the murder of
women by their intimate partners. She had
led three national studies on female murders and intimate femicides
in South Africa and
have also done some research on intimate
femicides at the global level. Her evidence was based on research
findings from SA and
from the rest of the world. She had access to
the typed records of the case of the accused.
[13] In explaining
gender-based violence, she said intimate partner violence was the
most common form of violence that women experienced,
perpetrated by
an intimate partner and the most common types were physical, sexual
and emotional abuse. Gender-based violence explained
the role of
gender and power dynamics in the use of violence by men against women
and girls. Male control was part of gender-based
violence. Male
partner controlling behavior was an undisputed part of violence in
intimate partner relations. This was described
by women and included
the male partner controlling the partner’s relationships with
important others such as family and friends
which was often the
victim’s support system. Monitoring her phone and
communications with others was therefore a common behavior
reported
by women. Stalking was part of the controlling behavior and the
motivation was to gain information about the victim- such
as who she
met. It was also a form of psychological abuse as stalkers made sure
that they were seen and used this as a threat.
[14] Studies in SA and
across the globe found that intimate partners were the most common
perpetrators of violence against women.
Between 25-65% of women in SA
reported ever experience of physical/ sexual and emotional abuse by a
current or ex-partner and the
levels differed dependent on where and
who was spoken to. Studies with men on their perpetration of intimate
partner violence showed
higher proportions disclosed, for example in
Gauteng 50% of men said they had ever used physical violence against
their partner,
KwaZulu Natal and the Eastern Cape 42% of adult men
interviewed had ever been physically violent towards a partner and
14% had
done so in the previous year.
[15] The killing of women
by male intimate partners was the most extreme form of intimate
partner violence as well as the most extreme
consequence of intimate
partner violence. Her research showed that almost 3 women were killed
by their intimate partners per day
in South Africa. The data from 66
countries in 2013 found that globally 33% of homicides of women were
committed by an intimate
partner. In comparison, in 2017, 52% of
women were killed by intimate partners. Intimate femicide is much
more common in South
Africa than in most countries of the world. 52%
versus 36% indicated that our rate was almost 5 times the global
rate.
[16] National studies
showed that the victim’s home was the scene of crime in 62% of
intimate femicides in 2009. 1 in 6 women
killed by their intimate
partners, that is, 15,3% were either divorced, separated or in the
process of separating from the perpetrator.
The heightened risk of
being killed during the time of separation was well described as a
precursor in the international literature
and was an extension of
controlling behavior. In research the risk was referred to as “
if
I can’t have you then no one else can”.
Across the
three national studies it was found that a third of the victims were
killed by stabbing. In a 1999 study it was shown
that 39.4% of the
women stabbed to death had multiple stab wounds. Multiple stab wounds
were referred to in research as excessive
injuries or “
overkill”.
This referred to injuries on more than one body part or multiple
wounds in one body area, and was an indication of the brutality
of
the crime. Research on African men showed that South African men have
strong expectations that they should be in control of
their partner,
to be respected by her and that the use of violence, within
limitations, are a legitimate part of this control.
[17] An area which was
noted to particularly cause conflict was jealousy and practices
related to having multiple partners. Studies
showed that men spent a
considerable amount of energy trying to police the sexual practices
of their female partners. It was very
common in the context of
violence when men accused women of infidelity. Research also found
that it was men with fragile self-esteem
and inherent propensity for
violence, who after a time started accusing their partner of
infidelity, which was usually perceived
infidelity. Most men in
prison described the act of killing their partner as one of
‘snapping’ or ‘losing control’
but it was
often an act which was committed in order to regain control. Most men
felt belittled or humiliated at the point where
they killed their
partner and felt no remorse, and usually externalized blame,
asserting that ‘she had made me do it’.
At this point
they saw her as being of such little value that she deserved to be
the victim of his outburst of extreme aggression.
The killing was a
final attempt to regain the upperhand over their partner, one who was
no longer regarded as worth having. In
her closing remarks, the
Professor said:
“
We
all have a responsibility daily as individuals and as part of the
state systems of justice to prevent and to ensure justice to
victims
are ensured.”
[18] The State called
both the parents of the deceased. The deceased matriculated in and
moved from Plettenberg Bay to study Business
Management at Cape Town
College. She thereafter worked for a fabric company called Mango and
later joined Poetry stores. The deceased
helped her parents by
sending them around R1500 and R1200 per month for their upkeep. The
father was employed as a general Assistant
at Southern Cape College
in Plettenberg Bay. The family also rented two rooms at R900 each to
supplement their income. The mother
was doing Christmas shopping in
Knysna when she learned about the deceased’s passing. She had
to stop the shopping and be
driven home. The father was at home when
he was called by a Lecturer at the College where he worked who asked
when last did he
speak to her daughter. People around the parents
knew about her going missing and her death before the parents did.
This included
the lecturer and the deceased’s half-sister.
[19] Both parents were
still struggling to come to terms with her death. The mother shared
the last moments which she shared with
the deceased when she was last
visiting. The deceased had disclosed to her the relationship with the
accused. The deceased had
informed her of her experiences when there
had been arguments with the accused, in that the accused would take
her cellphone away
from her. The accused would also get angry with
her if he had called her, and she did not pick up the phone. He would
also then
take her phone away with him. The mother did not think much
about these things. According to her, the deceased was just
explaining
the nature of the accused and for the mother it sounded
like disagreements that often characterize intimate relationships.
The
father broke down and shook uncontrollably when he testified
about his visit to the house where the deceased was killed and what
he saw, as well as his visit to identify her at the mortuary.
[20] The physical
reaction of the father as well as his emotional state, in my view,
requires urgent medical as well as psycho-social
investigation and
intervention. One has experienced parents who are unable to live
beyond two years after the brutal or sudden
death of their children
from physical injuries, for this to be ignored. One could not, on the
other hand, miss the brightness to
the father’s face when he
narrated the last call that he had with the deceased, the Thursday
before her death. On that day
the deceased had called him and asked
him how he was doing. The deceased then asked him to listen to what
music she was listening
to. She then played, over the phone,
“Nikita”, a song by Elton John. The father liked Elton
John’s songs and
used to play that song for her. With time, he
concluded, he will heal and be okay. The parents were worried about
the timing of
the accused’s written apology. They had not heard
from him or his family before. The accused had prepared from prison,
a
written apology which his counsel read out to the parents.
[21] The accused wrote:
“
This
letter of apology is addressed to the Mfengu family. I humbly ask for
your forgiveness and compassion. I’ve mentioned
before that no
amount of sorry will ever fix what has happened because putting
myself in your position, I understand any feeling
you have towards
me. Believe me when I say, up until this day I still ask myself
“why?”. It honestly shouldn’t
have happened in this
manner. I apologise for the embarrassment and humiliation it brought
to the family. Although you might not
forgive me today, but I pray
the God that consoles the heart console the hearts of the Mfengu
household. Once again, I truly am
sorry. May the peace and undeserved
kindness of God be with the family and all that were affected. Thank
you.”
The accused was 19 years
at the time of the commission of the offence, unmarried and had no
children. He had no history of drug
or alcohol abuse.
[22] Section 51(1) of the
CLAA provides as follows:
“
51
Discretionary minimum sentences for certain serious offences
(1) Notwithstanding any
other law, but subject to subsections (3) and (6), a regional court
or a High Court shall sentence a person
it has convicted of an
offence referred to in Part I of Schedule 2 to imprisonment for
life.”
Subsection (3)(a)
provides:
“
(3)
(a) If any court referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is satisfied
that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which
justify the
imposition of a lesser sentence than the sentence prescribed in those
subsections, it shall enter those circumstances
on the record of the
proceedings and must thereupon impose such lesser sentence: Provided
that if a regional court imposes such
a lesser sentence in respect of
an offence referred to Part 1 of Schedule 2, it shall have
jurisdiction to impose a term of imprisonment
for a period not
exceeding 30 years.”
The applicable provisions
of Part I Schedule 2 read:
“
SCHEDULE
2
(Section 51)
PART I
Murder. When –
(a)
It was planned or
premeditated.”
[23] Discussing the
concept of “substantial and compelling circumstances in
S v
Malgas
2001 (2) SA 1222
(SCA), it was said at para 8 and 9:
“
[8]
In what respects was it no longer to be business as usual? First, a
court was not to be given a clean slate on which to inscribe
whatever
sentence it thought fit. Instead, it was required to approach that
question conscious of the fact that the Legislature
has ordained life
imprisonment or the particular prescribed period of imprisonment as
the sentence which should ordinarily be imposed
for the commission of
the listed crimes in the specified circumstances. In short, the
Legislature aimed at ensuring a severe, standardised,
and consistent
response from the courts to the commission of such crimes unless
there were, and could be seen to be, truly convincing
reasons for a
different response. When considering sentence the emphasis was to be
shifted to the objective gravity of the type
of crime and the
public's need for effective sanctions against it. But that did not
mean that all other considerations were to
be ignored. The residual
discretion to decline to pass the sentence which the commission of
such an offence would ordinarily attract
plainly was given to the
courts in recognition of the easily foreseeable injustices which
could result from obliging them to pass
the specified sentences come
what may.
[9] Secondly, a court was
required to spell out and enter on the record the circumstances which
it considered justified a refusal
to impose the specified sentence.
As was observed in
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd
by
the Court of Appeal, 'a requirement to give reasons concentrates the
mind, if it is fulfilled the resulting decision is much
more likely
to be soundly based - than if it is not'. Moreover, those
circumstances had to be substantial and compelling. Whatever
nuances
of meaning may lurk in those words, their central thrust seems
obvious. The specified sentences were not to be departed
from lightly
and for flimsy reasons which could not withstand scrutiny.
Speculative hypotheses favourable to the offender, maudlin
sympathy,
aversion to imprisoning first offenders, personal doubts as to the
efficacy of the policy implicit in the amending legislation,
and like
considerations were equally obviously not intended to qualify as
substantial and compelling circumstances. Nor were marginal
differences in the personal circumstances or degrees of participation
of co-offenders which, but for the provisions, might have
justified
differentiating between them. But for the rest I can see no warrant
for deducing that the Legislature intended a court
to exclude from
consideration,
ante omnia
as it were, any or all of the many
factors traditionally and rightly taken into account by courts when
sentencing offenders. The
use of the epithets 'substantial' and
'compelling' cannot be interpreted as excluding even from
consideration any of those factors.
They are neither notionally nor
linguistically appropriate to achieve that. What they are apt to
convey is that the ultimate cumulative
impact of those circumstances
must be such as to justify a departure. It is axiomatic in the normal
process of sentencing that,
while each of a number of mitigating
factors when viewed in isolation may have little persuasive force,
their combined impact may
be considerable. Parliament cannot have
been ignorant of that. There is no indication in the language it has
employed that it intended
the enquiry into the possible existence of
substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure, to
proceed in a radically
different way, namely by eliminating at the
very threshold of the enquiry one or more factors traditionally and
rightly taken into
consideration when assessing sentence. None of
those factors have been singled out either expressly or impliedly for
exclusion
from consideration.”
[24] The accused
demonstrated a jealous and controlling behaviour. He had no respect
for the deceased and her friends. He kept the
deceased in a separate
room away from the lounge where the guests which the deceased was
hosting were waiting. It was in that room
where he held the deceased
that he strangled, bit and held her tightly on her wrists. It was in
that room where the deceased’s
phone was last seen in his
hands. The accused would not stop his abuse even when the visiting
friends intervened. His behaviour
led to the party being cancelled.
The deceased was in such fear that she could not be left alone with
the accused and left with
her friends whilst the accused was asked to
go home. The accused spoilt the evening for everyone and his
behaviour made having
fun, which was what was planned for the night,
impossible. The party continued later at a different place without
him.
[25] The Doctor described
the deceased’s stab wounds on the arms and fingers as defensive
wounds. This is when the deceased
tried to block off the blows and in
the process got stabbed. 6 of the 11 stab wounds were on the
deceased’s back, which were
blows she suffered when she had her
back to the accused as she unsuccessfully attempted to flee from the
stabbing. Even after the
deceased collapsed in the bedroom where she
fled to as she was running away from the accused, the accused
continued to stab her.
The accused could not explain why he continued
to stab the deceased even after she had collapsed, except to say that
he was consumed
by some strange spirit. Even when the deceased,
whilst lying on the floor and bleeding profusely, told the accused
that she thought
that she was bleeding internally, the accused did
not call for any medical attention for her. When he realized that she
had passed
on, he locked the doors and left the deceased alone. He
did not go home, but went to a friend to clean himself and sleep
over.
The next morning he staged a discovery of the deceased to the
neighbours and the police, and cried to seek sympathy and to win the
mind game. The alertness of the police and the neighbours revealed
his fake innocent discovery and despite his acting, he was arrested.
[26] It seems to me that
one of the greatest challenges in confronting gender-based violence
and femicide, besides factors like
that it happens within the closed
setting of acquaintance and is a very close connection and a private
and personal bond which
includes a sexual relationship, is what I
will call the elephant of dual personality of perpetrators. In public
and with close
family, relatives and friends, the perpetrator
displays conduct which enhances innocence, self-importance and trust.
The perpetrator
earns the attention and admiration of everyone around
them. They conduct themselves towards and in the presence of others
such
that their conduct is to be desired and approved of, pleasing
and welcoming to be with. They display all the qualities that are
required to build healthy, strong, useful and advantageous
relationships which have beneficial effects. This is the personality
that the accused’s family, friends and church knew, and which
the probation officer saw in the accused. It was his one side.
[27] But the accused had
the other side, the reality which was unknown to his family, friends
and church. The victim, over and above
the struggles with the reality
that they lived with the perpetrator, was faced with the feelings
that excite which the family and
the public knew and the perpetrator
openly displayed, which I will call emotional intimacy on one hand,
and the reality on the
other. The reality included the knowledge that
the perpetrator controlled not only their thought processes, but also
that of others
through influence in a cleverly and unscrupulous
manner. The perpetrator project a personality which is presented to
others so
as to mislead in a skillful manner. The perpetrator is
manipulative, and uses control and influence over others so that they
get
an advantage over the victim, which advantage is unfairly and
dishonestly beneficial to them.
[28] The victim
experiences the controlling behavior, being belittled, being blamed
for the conduct of the perpetrator as the reason
for his behavior and
being assaulted. It is only when the victim masters enough courage to
escape the paradox of a publicly model
partner but privately the
devil personified, that they are able to acknowledge that they are
not the problem. They then seek help
and if fortunate escape whilst
still alive. The deceased mastered the courage to speak out and told
Fekisi who was her friend’s
girlfriend, Tyhoko who was her
colleague at Poetry in Tygervally and Cupido who was a policeman who
lived close to where she spent
her last weekend. With Cupido
specifically, the deceased wanted advice on how to get protection
from the State, against the accused.
Unfortunately for her, the
accused killed her before she could avail herself of the resources
provided by the State for her protection.
[29] The duality in
personality often blinds families, relatives, acquaintances and
friends of the perpetrator and sometimes even
those of the victim,
and in my view deserves some scholarly research as part of the
national strategy against gender-based violence
and femicide. The
ambivalent nature of the perpetrators, which presents publicly as
good-natured, and on the other and private
side can be evil to their
intimate partners, reveals that they are human beings with two sides.
The accused, after seeing a message
on the deceased’s phone,
which I said was most probably from another man, was in an emotional
spectrum of love and hate towards
the deceased. Whilst he professed
to love her, the message aroused in him a state of anger and
loathing, if not outright hate.
The accused made a choice that
determined whether he loved or hated the deceased. He swung through
the continuum of emotions and
hate prevailed.
[30] From the evidence of
the deceased’s mother, the accused monitored the deceased’s
phone. The evidence suggests that
he followed what she did on her
phone to control her relationships with others. The probability is
that he monitored the deceased’s
phone to gain information
about her, and to establish who she spoke to. According to Professor
Abrahams, this controlling, monitoring
and stalking was one form of
emotional abuse, and emotional abuse was more common in intimate
relationships than physical, sexual
and economic abuse, in South
Africa. According to the professor, shame, embarrassment, self-blame
and a sense of hope were the
reasons that women did not report abuse
to the police or to their families. The deceased at least reported
this emotional abuse
to her mother but unfortunately, both were
socially-engineered to accept that what was happening was normal in
an intimate relationship.
[31] The deceased was in
the process of separation from the accused. She did not want to see
him. The accused killed her in this
period, which is an extension of
his controlling behavior. It was the period of heightened risk of “if
I can’t have
you then no one else can”. The deceased was
stabbed to death multiple times. These excessive injuries or overkill
indicated
the brutality of the crime. The reaction of the accused to
the message on the deceased’s phone suggests that the accused
suspected the deceased of infidelity. The deceased was killed because
of jealousy and a fragile self-esteem of the accused.
[32] It was a controlling
behavior that drove the accused to obsession with the deceased’s
cellphone and his propensity to
violence. He killed her to defend his
honour and to regain control over her. His externalized blame, where
he blames some evil
spirit or not knowing why he killed her, projects
a failure to take responsibility for his outburst of extreme
aggression. When
viewed against his attempt to mislead his own family
about what truly happened by not being frank and candid to his own
mother,
the mind games he attempted with the neighbours where the
body was found and the police about what he did to the deceased, his
apology to the deceased’s parents is hollow and shallow. It has
little or no depth and did not exhibit, require or was capable
of
invoking serious thought.
[33] Being offered in
mitigation of sentence stage just before his sentencing, the apology
sounds more like an instinctive tendency
to preserve himself from a
harmful long term imprisonment and to ensure survival from deserved
punishment. To date, he did not
unequivocally admit his guilt. Bruce
Lee once said: “Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the
courage to admit them.”
It seems to me that the belated apology
is not a conscious and deliberate product of a desire to help the
deceased’s family
to heal. It is an impulse impressed upon the
accused by self-preservation to maintain a semblance of veritable
remorse. He did
not explain what motivated him to commit the crime,
what provoked him to now change his heart and there is no indication
that he
actually and truly appreciate the consequences of his
actions. The apology is barren and amounts to no more than an
expression
of regret. The accused is still on the other side where he
is still unable to appreciate that peace trumps intelligence.
[34] The actions of the
State to confront gender-based violence and femicide have included
public communication which included advocacy
initiatives and public
awareness campaigns as well as the creation and implementation of
legislative packages as part of the strategy
to combat the two evils.
The legislative packages included the amendments of laws like the
Criminal Procedures through the introduction
of provisions like
minimum sentences as well as the introduction of new thoughts like
the
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act
32 of 2007
and the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
in an
effort to upgrade the legal framework which provided new tools and
innovative means to deal with the problem. These new tools
and
innovative means represent a deliberate effort and paradigm shift
intended to claw back the safety and security of women from
the deep
throat of toxic machismo.
[35] When sentencing a
young person, it is appropriate that the sentence must reflect
service to the interests of society, but also
of the young person.
The conduct of the accused contemporaneous with and immediately after
the murder do not display influence
and pressure from others, be it
peers or adults. In fact, his own peers, who were visiting, tried to
intervene and stop him in
his thought processes, but were
disregarded. I am unable to conclude that his conduct stemmed from
immature judgment from an unformed
character. There is no basis for
me to conclude that exacting full moral accountability and
consequences might be too harsh, under
the circumstances. The attempt
to cover up his involvement and stage a first discovery of the body
of the deceased was not an error.
It was a premeditated design to
mislead. Unless there is direct intervention in the path that the
accused has chosen, there is
no leeway and possibility for his
resourcefulness to be properly guided.
[36] The Judiciary should
speak such that we demonstrate that we are not cold, aloof and far
removed from the contemporary challenges.
Where circumstances permit,
we should show that we heed the public’s constitutional call to
make the punishment of crimes
against women, especially their brutal,
cruel and unnecessary killing more severe as part of the overall
responsibility of the
Republic of South Africa to provide a conducive
environment for women to live and love without fear of physical,
psychological,
economic and sexual abuse and violence. The increase
in the involvement of ex-partners, spouses, partners and boyfriends
in the
women’s experience of violence needs effective
initiatives beyond policy-making and called for the Judiciary to be
the leading
force and voice.
[37] The constitutional
value of human dignity will sound a hollow and false promise to women
unless the Judiciary is prepared to
speak with clarity on
unprecedented and effective sentencing to deliberately create a new
perspective for the safety and security
of women today and into the
future. Sentencing remain a difficult, complex but powerful tool that
makes it easier for the message
of the Judiciary to be noted in its
confrontation of the culture of abuse of and violence against women.
The unequivocal voice
of the Judiciary will resound in homes and in
relationships, and in that way contribute to change the current tide
and course where
the home and intimate relationships remain as the
spaces of greatest risk for women.
[38] The accused is a
young person and a first offender. The savagely violent, unnecessary
distress, the showing of desire to willfully
inflict severe pain on
the deceased in extremely horrifying and terrible circumstances with
no feeling of concern and devoid of
humane feelings, weighs the
scales of justice towards a punitive and retributive disposition as a
trajectory towards his reform,
rehabilitation and correction. This in
my view is one of those instances where the youthfulness and being a
first offender should
yield to the brutality of the offence, the
unnecessary denial of life to another and an unmitigated toxic
masculinity, in the scales
of justice. The probation officer
testified that imprisonment afforded the accused the opportunity to
address any social challenges
whilst serving his sentence. She noted
that the Department of Correctional Services worked in a holistic
manner as it had a multi-disciplinary
team consisting of Social
Workers, Psychologists, Educators etc. Having regard to the mindset
of the accused currently, in my view
he will require some time to
make a paradigm shift to learn to internalize blame, understand
remorse and appreciate what forgiveness
requires from those asking
for it, in instances where one acknowledged that one erred.
[39] The sentence
inevitably result from the nature of the offence, the person of the
accused and the interests of society. The
contrary, which is treating
the accused like a child and as a model member of society is
impossible. The strengthening of the judicial
hand in sentencing
needed to be done to achieve justice, to present a sense that the
principle that people receive that which they
deserve in the
perspective of moral correctness based on rationality and the law is
still fundamentally central to the nature of
the rule of law in our
constitutional democracy. If the victims speak and the nation
perceives, and we together ensure justice,
appropriate sentences will
follow, and women will be safe. The personal circumstances of the
accused are dominated by the aggravating
circumstances in this case,
which includes the seriousness of the crime and the interests of
society. The objective gravity
of the type of crime and the
need for effective sanctions against it, in the midst of all other
considerations for an appropriate
sentence, call for emphasis. The
ultimate impact of all relevant circumstances do not justify a
departure from the standardized
response that the Legislature has
ordained for premeditated murder [
S v Dodo
[2001] ZACC 16
;
2001 (3) SA 382
(CC) at para 11]. I am not satisfied that substantial and compelling
circumstances exist which justify the imposition of a lesser
sentence.
[40] For these reasons
the accused is sentenced as follows:
1. On assault with intent
to do grievous bodily harm: The accused is sentenced to 2 years
imprisonment.
2. On theft: The accused
is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
3. On premeditated
murder: The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment.
The sentences on the
count of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 1) and
theft (count 2) are to run concurrently
with the sentence on
premeditated murder (count 3).
4. The accused is
declared unfit to possess a firearm.
DM
THULARE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Sogoni v S (A243/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 136; 2023 (1) SACR 290 (WCC) (18 July 2022)
[2022] ZAWCHC 136High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
Tshandu v S (A248/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 123 (14 June 2022)
[2022] ZAWCHC 123High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
C.F v S.G (538/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 204 (20 October 2022)
[2022] ZAWCHC 204High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
C.R v S.R (11646/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 224 (28 August 2023)
[2023] ZAWCHC 224High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
Kameni v S (A248/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 224 (7 August 2024)
[2024] ZAWCHC 224High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar