Murderer apologises to family of his victim
played remorse by pleading guilty whereas accused two (Moleme) displayed more aggressive behaviour. Accused one did not waste the time of the court. The accused have also been in custody for 18 months. These aspects, including the personal circumstances of the accused, are evident that there are substantial and compelling circumstances for the court to deviate from the prescribed sentences of life-imprisonment for the murder charge and 15 years for robbery. I request the court to impose a sentence of 20 years for the murder charge and 10 years for the robbery,” said Setouto.
Moleme’s legal representative, Advocate Kenneth Pretorius, asked the court to take the youthfulness of his client, as well as the influence that alcohol played on the night, into account.
“A mitigating circumstance is that the accused was 22 years old at the time of the offence. It is also quite evident that the accused came from a tavern. Although he did not testify to that effect, alcohol did play a role in the matter. I request the court to impose a sentence of 12 years for the robbery charge and a 20 year sentence for the murder charge,” Pretorious said.
The State, represented by Advocate Adele van Heerden, however said that Moleme had indicated that alcohol had not influenced his actions.
“The legal representative of accused two has argued that one of the compelling circumstances was the effect of alcohol. However, the accused was specifically asked during trial about the effect that alcohol had on him on that day. The accused said he could remember everything and that the alcohol had no effect on him,” said Van Heerden.
She conceded that the two accused had played very different roles and their actions had different effects.
“There are some aspects that differentiate the two accused. Accused one pleaded guilty to murder with direct intent. That can be viewed as a sign of remorse and it normally spares the family the ordeal of having to testify. Accused one also said he felt embarrassment for what they did. The demeanour of accused one throughout the trial was that of embarrassment. Accused two was clearly the more dominant party and he was the person who suggested that they should get hold of the deceased and stab him,” she said.
Van Heerden added that the incident had a financial and psychological impact on the family of the deceased.
“The impact report stated that the family cannot come to terms with the death of the deceased. The deceased was the breadwinner of the home and he supported many family members financially. The grandmother of the deceased now has to collect wood as they are no longer able to buy electricity due to the financial constraints.”
She submitted that should the court find substantial and compelling circumstances, it would only be with regards to Mosholodi.
“The offences are so horrific that it justifies life imprisonment for the murder charge. The personal circumstances of accused two does not constitute compelling circumstances. However, if the court finds such circumstances do exist, the State requests a sentence of no less than 20 years imprisonment for murder and 12 years for robbery,” van Heerden said.
Both accused remain in custody.