Rex V Thakholi Seqobela (CRI/T/0036/2023) [2024] LSHC 45 (20 March 2024)

# Rex V Thakholi Seqobela (CRI/T/0036/2023) [2024] LSHC 45 (20 March 2024) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Rex V Thakholi Seqobela \(CRI/T/0036/2023\) \[2024\] LSHC …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20) [ Download PDF (344.0 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (344.0 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/45/eng@2024-03-20/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Rex V Thakholi Seqobela (CRI/T/0036/2023) [2024] LSHC 45 (20 March 2024) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Rex V Thakholi Seqobela (CRI/T/0036/2023) [2024] LSHC 45 (20 March 2024) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2024] LSHC 45 Copy Hearing date 18 March 2024 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CRI/T/0036/2023 Judges [Mokoko J](/judgments/all/?judges=Mokoko%20J) Judgment date 20 March 2024 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Refugees](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees) * [Criminal law](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law) * [Murder](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law-murder) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **Held at Maseru** **CRI/T/0036/2023** In the matter between **REX** **CROWN** And **THAKHOLI SEQOBELA** **** **ACCUSED** _Neutral Citation_ : Rex v Thakholi Seqobela [2024] LSHC 45 CRIM (20th March 2024) **CORAM :** T.J. MOKOKO J **HEARD :** 18TH MARCH 2024 **DELIVERED** **:** 20TH MARCH 2024 **SUMMARY** _Murder- Defence failing to put its defence to crown witnesses - Defence of self-defence not reasonably possibly true - Accused brutally killed the deceased- Accused formed necessary intention to kill the deceased._ **__ANNOTATIONS__** **__Cases__** 1. _Bobe v The State [2006] 1 BLR 254 (CA)_ 2. _Lefaso v Rex LAC 1990 – 1994_ 3. _Lerato Mahanye and Another v Rex LLRLB_ 4. _Letuka v Rex LAC 1995-1999_ 5. _Linake v Rex C OF A (CRI) NO. 10/2008_ 6. _Linake v Rex LAC (2009 – 2010)_ 7. _Mohlalisi and Other v Rex LAC (1980- 1984)_ 8. _Phaloane v Rex 1981(2) LLR_ 9. _Rex v Ranthithi_ _and Another LAC 2007-2008_ 10. _R v Attwood 1946 AD 331_ 11. _Scout v Rex_ _LAC 2009 – 2010 279_ 12. _S v Ngobeni 1992 (1) SACR 628 (C)_ 13. _S V Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A)_ **__Statutes__** 1. _Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ 2. _Penal Code[Act No. 6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6)_ **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** [1] Accused is charged with contravention of _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code[Act No. 6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6), read with section 40 (2)_ thereof, in that upon or about the 21st December 2020, at or near Sea point tavern in the district of Qacha’s Nek, the accused killed Kekeletso Pau. [2] Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The crown led evidence of two witnesses and the statements of six witnesses and the post-mortem report were admitted by the defence. **PW1- Bafokeng Chabana** [3] He testified that on the 21st December 2020, he was at Sea Point tavern working as a sales clerk. There were many patrons who had come to the tavern as it was a festive season. Among the patrons he recognised one Nkaota, Poulo, and Thabang. He knows the accused before court. The accused was at the bar. A quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased, over who was next in line, to play the pool game. He resolved the misunderstanding by undertaking to give the accused M2.00, so that he could be the next person to play the pool. The witness went outside to pee. When he came back into the bar, he saw the accused approaching the deceased. The accused was holding a knife. He saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the knife just below the neck. The deceased fell on the pool table. Shortly thereafter, the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on the back of his neck. The deceased fell on his face. The accused then sat on the deceased and stabbed him several times. Accused stood up, walked towards the entrance door, but returned to the deceased. The accused turned the deceased over and stabbed him with the knife on the chest area. The accused raised his knife and said he was going to hand himself over to the Police. The accused took the direction towards the police station, and later the police arrived at the bar. [4] Nothing much was put to the witness under cross-examination, except that the witness was concealing that there was some betting taking place at the bar. **PW2** \- **Kananelo Chabana** [5] He testified that on the 21st December 2020, he was at Sea Point tavern, assisting his brother (PW1) as a sales clerk, as it was too busy due to the fact that it was a festive season. The patrons were not only drinking alcohol but were also playing pool game. A quarrel between the accused and the deceased ensued. The witness approached them, to investigate what the matter was. The witness resolved the problem by undertaking to give the accused M10.00, and that the accused would play the pool before the deceased. [6] The accused went outside, and it was approaching 12:00 am, which was the closing time. The witness left the deceased and went to put off the music. He saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the knife on the neck. The deceased lost balance and supported himself with the pool table. On the second occasion, the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on the back of the neck, and thereafter stabbed the deceased several times. The accused went towards the entrance door, but came back, pulled the deceased by the leg, and continued to stab him. After that the accused said he was handing himself over to the police. The witness rushed to the police station and while he was reporting the incident to the police, the accused arrived at the police station. The witness testified that some of the patrons ran away. He said no one tried to stop the accused, because the way the accused was raising up his hand as he was stabbing the deceased, would have been unsafe for anyone to try to stop him. [7] Under cross-examination it was suggested to the witness that he did not see the accused stabbing the deceased. The witness stood his ground that he saw the accused stab the deceased with the knife. It was suggested that there was a fight between the accused and the deceased. The witness stuck to his version that there was no fight between the accused and the deceased, rather he saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the knife. The witness stated that the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on the neck when the deceased raised his quart to his mouth to have a gulp of his beer. The witness stated that the same distance he took to put off the music, was the same distance that the accused took from where he was, to where the deceased was. He testified that the deceased was not expecting any attack from the accused, as he was relaxed drinking his beer. The witness stuck to his version that he saw the accused approaching the deceased and stabbing him with the knife on the neck. [8] The following statements were admitted by the defence in terms of _section 273 (1) of theCriminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_. This section provides that an accused person or his representative in his presence may, in any criminal proceedings, admit any fact relevant to the issue and the admission shall be sufficient evidence of that fact. 1. Report of scene made by NO. 55726 D/P/C Hody. He stated that on arrival at Sea Point tavern, he found a man lying in a pool of blood, next to the pool table. On examination of the body, he observed two open wounds on the chest above the left breast, three open wounds on the right of the neck, one open wound on the right jaw, two open wounds at the back, one open wound at the back of the head. He took the body to the hospital, and he was certified dead by the doctor. The report was marked exhibit “A”. 2. Statement of Lehlohonolo Lefatle. He stated that on the 19th December 2020, he was at Sea Point tavern, drinking some alcohol. He was sitting outside the bar. The accused approached him and asked the witness to borrow him the knife. He told the deceased that he did not have a knife. The accused went back into the bar. After a short while, he saw the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife at his back. He saw the deceased falling to the ground. The witness then ran away due to fright. The statement was handed in and marked exhibit “B”. (iii) Statement of Tsepang Thamae. He stated that on the 21st December 2020, at around 11:30 pm, he was at Sea Point bar, drinking some beer. The accused approached the witness and asked for a knife. The witness handed over the knife to the accused. The accused, then went into the bar. He saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the knife, while the deceased was on the ground. The accused said he was going to the police station. The statement was handed in and marked exhibit “C”. 3. Identifying statement of Tseliso Motlomelo. He stated that he identified the body of the deceased before the post-mortem was performed. It was handed in and marked exhibit “D”. 4. Identifying statement of Itumeleng Pau. He stated that he identified the body of the deceased before the post-mortem was performed. The statement was handed in and marked exhibit “E”. 5. Report of arrest and seizure of exhibit by No. 38929 P/C Mafa. He stated that on the 21st December 2020, the accused surrendered himself and handed the Okapi knife to him, as the murder weapon. He proceeded to the crime scene and took the deceased to the hospital. The doctor certified that the deceased had succumbed to his injuries. They took the deceased to the mortuary. The report was handed in and marked exhibit “F”. 6. LMPS 12 in respect of brown Okapi knife, silver blade, brown handle. It was handed in and marked exhibit “G”. 7. The post-mortem report - It shows that death was due to hypovolemic shock and hypoperfusion of brain which causes brain asphyxia secondary to haemorrhage caused by section of right jugular vein and carotid artery. External appearance- two open wounds on the left above the breast, three large open wounds on the right side of the neck, one open wound on the right mandibular region, two open wounds on the chest posterior region. Skull and its contents- a laceration on occipital region. It was handed in and marked exhibit “H”. Crown then closed its case. [9] After the crown had closed its case, the defence moved an application for the postponement of the matter, to enable the attendance of its witness. The matter was accordingly postponed to the 19th March 2024 for the attendance of the defence witness. On the 19th March 2024, the defence informed the court that the witness was not available, therefore the accused will testify in his defence. **DW1- Thakholi Seqobela** [10] He testified that on the 21st December 2020, at about 12:00 pm he arrived at Sea-Point tavern. He played pool game with other patrons. The deceased arrived and he played pool game with him. An hour before the closing time, the deceased took money that was placed on the pool table. This caused a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The deceased wanted to talk to the accused, but the accused was not interested in any discussion. One Teboho told the accused that the deceased was armed with a gun. The witness testified that he did not carry a knife, and he borrowed it from Tsepang Thamae. The witness said the deceased hit him with a fist, and he hit the deceased back. The deceased then hit the accused with the quart bottle on the chest, and the deceased’s hand moved towards his waist. It was at that time that the witness stabbed the deceased with the knife several times. The witness testified that he stabbed the deceased with the knife because he believed that the deceased had a gun. The witness testified that he felt that his life was in danger. He said he had been drinking since 12:00 pm. The witness stated that he was in a stable state of mind. [11] Under cross -examination it was suggested to the witness that he went outside to borrow the knife. The witness stuck to his version that he did not go outside. It was however put to the witness that he did not rebut evidence that he went outside to one Lehlohonolo Lefatle and Tsepang Thamae, to borrow the knife. It was further suggested to the witness that he is the only person who said there was a fight between the accused and the deceased. The witness insisted that there was such a fight. It was suggested to the witness that the evidence that the deceased was armed with a gun, was an afterthought. The witness stuck to his version that he thought the deceased had a gun. Lastly, it was suggested to the witness that he unlawfully attacked the deceased who was not posing any danger to him. The witness stated that he was afraid and confused. The defence then closed its case. **SUBMISSIONS** [12] Crown submitted that the defence failed to put its defence to the crown witness, as such the crown witnesses were denied an opportunity to react to the defence’s version. The defence therefore submitted that the accused’s version was a fabrication, and an afterthought therefore should be rejected. [13] On the accused’s defence of self-defence, the crown submitted that the accused’s version that the accused attacked him, should be rejected as not reasonably possibly true, because all the crown witnesses corroborate each other that the accused is the one who attacked the deceased, who was just relaxed drinking his beer. The court was referred to the case of**_Linake v Rex_ _**[1]**_**.**** The defence submitted that at all material times the accused was the aggressor. The deceased was not armed with anything. The crown submitted the accused had formed the necessary intention to kill the deceased, first by going around borrowing the knife from Lehlohonolo Lefatle and ultimately obtaining it from Tsepang Thamae. Immediately having been armed with the knife, he attacked the deceased with it and inflicted several wounds on him. The crown submitted that, the accused left the deceased lying on the ground, but the accused turned back to the accused and stabbed him several times again. The crown submitted that was a clear intention to kill the deceased. The crown submitted further that the weapon used and the areas on the body where the wounds were inflicted as well as the number of wounds inflicted, show clear intention to kill the deceased. [14] The defence submitted that both PW1 and PW2 were not credible witnesses, therefore their evidence should be rejected. The defence submitted that the deceased attacked the accused by hitting the accused with fist and later by hitting the accused with the quart bottle on the chest. Based on this the defence submitted that the accused acted in self-defence. **THE LAW** **Failure to put defence version to the Crown witness.** [15] In the case of **_Lerato Mahanye and Another v Rex**[2]**_ , Steyn P** stated that although the court a quo did not regard the evidence implicating the second appellant as being strong, it came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case for the second appellant to meet and that in the absence of any challenge in cross-examination and in the absence of any defence evidence contradicting PW10’s evidence, that prima facie case became conclusive[3]. Steyn P went further to state that, the cross-examination was roving and extensive but no version of the first appellant’s case was ever suggested. In the circumstances I am persuaded that the Court a quo erred in accepting his evidence and holding that such evidence established a _prima facie_ case of theft against the first appellant.[4] In the case of **_Phaloane v Rex_**** _**[5]**_**, **Maisel P.** as he then was stated that, it is generally accepted that the function of counsel is to put the defence case to the crown witnesses, not only to avoid the suspicion that the defence is fabricating, but to provide the witnesses with the opportunity of denying or confirming the case for the accused. Moreover, even making allowance for certain latitude that may be afforded in criminal cases for a failure to put the defence case to the crown witnesses, it is important for the defence to put its case to the prosecution witnesses as the trial court is entitled to see and hear the reaction of the witnesses to every important allegation. [16] Be that as it may, the court gathered from the evidence of DW1 that his defence was that of self-defence. At this stage I wish to look at the principles applicable in self-defence. These principles were well articulated in the Court of Appeal case of **_Linake v Rex**[6]**_** , where**Ramodibedi P.** had this to say: _At this stage I should like to repeat what I said in the Court of Appeal of Botswana in the case_ of** _Bobe v The State**[7]**_ ,** (**Grosskopf JA** and **Lord Coulsfield JA** concurring) namely: “ _Now, it is a fundamental essence of this principle that where an accused person raises self-defence, the state bears the onus to negative such defence beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, it is well established that this is so even though an accused person does not rely on self-defence. If the evidence suggests the existence of self-defence as a reasonable possibility, then the accused is entitled to an acquittal._ See **_S V Ntuli_**** _**[8]**_**. _As a general principle, there are three requirements for a successful defence of self-defence, namely, if it appears as a reasonable possibility on the evidence that:_ 1. _The accused had been unlawfully attacked and had reasonable grounds for thinking that he was in danger of death or serious injury at the hands of his attacker._ 2. _The means he used in defending himself were not excessive in relation to the danger._ 3. _And the means he used in defending himself were the only or least dangerous means whereby he could have avoided the danger. See**R v Attwood**[9]****. _ [17] In applying the principles enunciated in the cases referred to above, the following question becomes relevant; did the deceased attack the accused in the manner claimed by the accused, thus entitling the accused to self-defence? The answer to this question lies right in the evidence of both PW1 and PW2, the admitted statements of Tsepang Thamae and Lehlohonolo Lefatle. Both PW1 and PW2 corroborate each other that the accused is the one who attacked the deceased with the knife and stabbed him on the neck on the first occasion. As a result of this first strike, the deceased lost balance and supported himself with the pool table. It was at that stage that the accused stabbed the deceased at the back of the neck on the second occasion. I should emphasize the evidence of the two crown witnesses is consistent that when the second strike was made the accused was behind the deceased, as the deceased was trying to retain his balance. Both PW1 and PW2 corroborated each other that the accused was the aggressor. Both Lehlohonolo Lefatla and Tsepang Thamae corroborate each other, that the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife several times. Tsepang Thamae witnessed that the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife while the deceased was lying prostrate on the ground. [18] There is evidence to the effect that the accused left the deceased, and walked towards the door, but he returned to the deceased, turned him over and stabbed him several times. It should be remembered that at the time the deceased had fallen to the ground. I hold a view that the deceased had fallen to the ground because the two stab wounds on the neck had weakened him. Could it be said even at that stage the deceased was posing a danger to the accused. The answer to this question is in the negative. PW2 described the brutal way in which the accused lifted the hand as he was striking at the deceased. It is crystal clear that the accused had formed the necessary intention to kill the deceased, who was harmless and defenceless. I saw the demonstration of PW2, as to how the accused stabbed the deceased on the first occasion when the deceased had lifted his bottle to take a sip of his beer. This shows that the deceased was not expecting any attack from the accused. It was the accused who waited for the right moment to strike at the deceased when he least expected. None of the crown witnesses stated that the deceased was armed with a gun. The police officer who came to the scene, examined the body of the deceased, and he did not find any gun on the deceased. I therefore hold that the accused’s version that the deceased attacked him is not reasonably possibly true and is rejected. I find that at all material times the accused was the aggressor. I find that both PW1 and PW2 were truthful and credible witnesses, therefore their evidence can be relied on. The evidence of both Lehlohonolo Lefatle and Tsepang Thamae is reliable and is believed by the court. [19] Coming to the intention to kill the deceased, I have looked at the conduct of the accused in this matter. He approached Lehlohonolo Lefatle borrowing his knife. Unfortunately for him Lehlohonolo Lefatle did not have a knife. The accused then approached Tsepang Thamae, who lent him his knife. Immediately after being armed with the knife the accused attacked the deceased and stabbed him with it several times. This piece of evidence clearly shows that the accused had formed the necessary intention to kill the deceased. He stopped at nothing to get the knife so that he could accomplish his mission. He brutally attacked the deceased stabbing him on the delicate parts of the body, i.e the neck and the chest area. When the deceased was on the ground, he went back to the deceased, turned him over so that he could have access to delicate parts of his body and stabbed him several times. Having stabbed the deceased twice on the front part of the neck and at the back of the neck, he returned to the deceased, to make sure that the deceased would not survive it. He started stabbing him brutally without any mercy at all. [20] The post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained seven wounds in total. Two were on the left above the breast, three large open wounds on the right side of the neck, one open wound on the right mandibular region, and two open wounds on the chest. Most of these wounds were on the delicate parts of the body. I have no doubt that the accused selected those parts of the body, so that the deceased could not survive his attack. I say this because there is unchallenged evidence that the accused turned the deceased over, so that the deceased could face him, to target those vulnerable parts of the body. I have no doubt in my mind that the crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased. The number of the wounds the accused inflicted on the deceased, clearly demonstrate his intention to kill the deceased. Knife is a lethal weapon, and I hold a view that the deceased went about looking for the knife, because he knew that with that lethal weapon, he would accomplish his plan. The defence submitted that the accused was not armed with a knife when he went to the bar, because he had not intended to kill anyone, not to mention the deceased. This argument is lame because the accused formed and hatched the plan to kill the deceased at the time, he started looking for the knife. Even though his search was not successful with Lehlohonolo Lefatle, he did not change his mind, about acquiring a knife. He approached Tsepang Thamae, who handed over his knife to the accused. Having been armed with a knife, he did not waste any time. He went straight to the deceased and stabbed him with the knife on the neck, and thereafter stabbed him several times on the shown areas. This evidence quite clearly indicates that the accused had formed a direct intention to kill the deceased with a knife. It is for this reasons that the accused’s version that he did not carry a knife is found to be irrelevant, in relation to his intentions at the material time. [21] I therefore find that the accused ‘s version that the accused attacked him as a fabrication and an afterthought, more so when the accused failed to put this version to the crown witnesses. The accused’s story that the deceased attacked him is not reasonably possibly true and it is rejected as false. I hold a strong view that the accused unlawfully attacked the deceased who did not pose any danger to him. The accused as the aggressor inflicted brutal injuries on the deceased who was helpless and defenceless. I hold that the crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended the killing of the deceased, and the accused’s defence of self-defence is rejected. **ORDER** 1. The accused is found guilty of murder with _dolus directus._ My Assessors Agree. **SENTENCING** [22] _Section 296 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ , provides that, where the High Court convicts a person of murder, it shall state whether in its opinion there are extenuating circumstances and if it is of the opinion that there are such circumstances, it may specify them. _Section 296 (2)_ provides that in deciding whether there are any extenuating circumstances, the High Court shall take into consideration the standards of behaviour of an ordinary person of class of the community to which the accused belongs. [23] In the case of **_Lefaso v Rex_**** _**[10]**_****,** **Schutz P**. explained extenuating circumstances as follows: “ _Extenuating circumstances are such as reduce the moral, if not the legal guilt of the accused. The onus of proving them on a balance of probability rests on the accused”._ [24] In **_Letuka v Rex LAC 1995-1999_** , **Steyn P** stated that extenuating circumstances are any facts associated with the commission of the crime, whose effect in the minds of reasonable persons is to reduce the moral blameworthiness of the accused, as distinct from the accused’s legal culpability. [25] The court of appeal in the **_Letuka case_** _(supra)_ remarked further that, each factor may individually have little weight taken cumulatively however, they may well tip the scale in an accused’s favour when evaluated against the aggravating features. Factors which can be considered include the following; youth, liquor, emotional conflict, the nature of the motive, provocation, sub-normal intelligence, general background, impulsiveness, a lesser part on the commission of the murder, absence of _dolus directus_ (**_S v Ngobeni**[11]**), Mohlalisi and Other v Rex**[12]**_ , **belief in witchcraft, absence of premeditation or planning, heavy confrontation between an accused and the deceased before murder, rage of an accused (See **_S v Prins**[13]**_**_)_. [26] I conclude that there are extenuating circumstances if favour of the accused person, to wit; the accused had been drinking alcohol on the fateful night, at the time of the commission of this offence, the accused was aged 26 years, therefore he was a youth, the accused comes from a rural area in the outskirts of Qacha’s Nek district. [27] The court has now come to the most difficult stage of the trial, which is the passing of the appropriate and just sentence that will serve the interests of justice. In passing sentence this court should consider three main factors, which are the nature of the offence, the interests of the accused, and the interests of society at large. In the case of **_Rex v Ranthithi_ _and Another**[14]**_ , Ramodibedi JA**, as he then was, stated that in determining a proper sentence, it is necessary to have regard to trial consisting of the offence, the offender, and the interests of society. As regards the consideration relating to the crime committed, there can be no doubt that murder is a very serious offence. This court believes in the sanctity of human life. It is in the interests of society that people convicted of murder be put away for a long time. This is so in order to protect society itself against such people. There must also be a distinction drawn between sentence for murder and sentence for culpable homicide. The court is enjoined to strike a proper balance between all these factors. [28] The crown stated that the accused has no previous convictions. On mitigation of sentence the Adv. Sebeta submitted on behalf of the accused that the accused is the first offender, he is 30 years old, showed remorse by surrendering himself to the police after the commission of this offence, he is the breadwinner of his family and takes care of his grandmother and relatives, he was 26 years old at the time of the commission of this offence (a youth), and that the accused was intoxicated at the material time. [29] On aggravation of sentence, Adv. Rathebe for the crown, submitted that in passing the appropriate sentence on the accused, the court should consider that murder is a serious offence, whose sentence should be harsh. She submitted that the family of the deceased has lost their loved son permanently and they will never see him again. The deceased was brutally killed, and the community should see that the courts of law punish offenders appropriately, to deter others from committing similar offences. The crown submitted further that if the courts of law impose lenient sentences in murder cases, the society will lose confidence in the administration of justice and may resort to self-help. [30] In the case of **_Scout v Rex_**[15], the Court of Appeal stated that sentence is pre-eminently a matter in the discretion of the trial court and that interference with a sentence is only justified on limited grounds. It is in the interest of society that people convicted of murder be put away for a long time. None the less, a sentence for murder must be individually tailored to the facts of each case. Thus, some cases call for heavier sentences than others[16]. [31] I have considered the mitigating factors that were pleaded on behalf of the accused to wit; that he is the first offender- thus he is not prone to offending against the law, he should remorse by handing himself to the police, he is the breadwinner of his family, he was a youth at the time of the commission of this offence and that he was intoxicated at the time of commission of this offence. [32] On the other hand the court has considered the aggravating factors to wit; that murder is a serious offence which should be punished severely, the deceased was brutally killed, the family of the deceased has lost their loved son permanently and they will never see him again, the interest of society demand that the punishment that the courts impose should be deterrent, and that the courts should restore the confidence of the public in the administration of justice, to avoid self-help. [33] In passing the appropriate sentence in this matter, I have considered further that murder is prevalent in the Mountain Kingdom, and the courts of law should pass sentences which will pass a clear message to the members of public that acts of violence especially murder will be punished harshly. This court has taken judicial notice of many killings caused with knives. A knife is a dangerous lethal weapon, and those who attack others with this lethal weapon should meet the strong might of the law. I have considered that the deceased was killed brutally. The deceased sustained seven open wounds on the delicate parts of the body- the neck and the chest area. The accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased who was helpless and harmless. I have further considered that there is a public outcry that the rate of murders is increasing at an alarming rate. [34] In order to arrest this problem and restore the public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of justice, the courts should demonstrate in the nature of the sentences that they pass that murder will be punished harshly. It is only through the harsh sentences that the confidence of the public can be restored in the administration of justice. I fully agree with the crown counsel that if the courts do not mete out appropriate sentences in murder cases, the community will lose confidence in the courts of law and resort to taking the law into their own hands. The sentence that this court should impose must reflect that murder is a very serious offence. The court is mindful that life is God given and should not just be taken away for no reason at all. Therefore, this court must send a strong message to this accused and those who think like him that resort to violence by knives, cannot go unpunished. It is only through the appropriate sentences of this court that members of the public will feel protected against people like this accused person. I have had an occasion to observe the demeanour of the accused person, he impressed me as a remorseful person. I have considered that from the commencement of this trial the accused always appeared in court on time as warned. This is a clear indication that the accused has respect for the courts of law and the administration of justice. I have however, considered that he has taken the deceased from his family and that they will never see him again. [35] I have concluded that the most appropriate sentence that will fit this crime, the offender, and the interests of society in these circumstances is the following. **ORDER** 1. The accused is sentenced to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. My Assessors agree. **DISPOSAL ORDER** 1. In terms of _section 56 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ , the exhibit to wit; Brown Okapi knife, silver blade, brown handle, is forfeited to the crown. **__________________** **T.J. MOKOKO** **JUDGE** **FOR THE CROWN:** ADV. S.B RATHEBE, ASSISTED BY ADV. LEPHEANA **FOR THE ACCUSED:** ADV. R.E SEBETA **** * * * [1] C OF A (CRI) NO. 10/2008 [2] LLRLB 105 [3] LLRLB 1999 – 2000 at P 123. [4] LLRLB 1999 – 2000 at P 125-126. [5] 1981(2) LLR at 246 [6] LAC (2009 – 2010) at P. 7 [7] [2006] 1 BLR 254 (CA) at 257 [8] 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) [9] 1946 AD 331 [10] LAC 1990 – 1994 44 at P 405 [11] 1992 (1) SACR 628 (C) [12] LAC (1980- 1984) 110 at 117) [13] 1990 (1) SACR 426 (A) [14] LAC 2007-2008 245 [15] LAC 2009 – 2010 279 [16] LAC 2009 – 2010 at P 289 #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >