Momberg sentence may be example for crimen injuria convictions

A POTENTIALLY precedentsetting decision lies in the hands of magistrate Pravina Rugoonandan, which may see the first person in the country’s history handed a prison term for crimen injuria.

For more than a year, the Randburg Magistrate’s Court has heard the criminal trial of real estate agent Vicki Momberg, the woman caught on video in 2016 using the k-word 48 times against the officers helping her after a smash-and-grab.

The trial has seen its share of drama, with Momberg changing lawyers multiple times and accusing Rugoonandan, prosecutor Yusuf Baba, and even the probation officers of conspiring against her.

Momberg insisted the Equality Court was wrong in ruling her behaviour was highly offensive, and fining her R100 000.

On Wednesday, Rugoonandan is expected to sentence Momberg, whom she earlier found guilty of four counts of crimen injuria – one for each of the officers who was verbally assaulted.

The probation officers’ report, compiled on Momberg’s request, suggested a prison sentence could be appropriate for he.

This would mean she would be incarcerated on weekends, subject to anger management and rehabilitation programmes within the prison system.

This week, Baba laid all his cards on the table in his closing arguments.

He had hinted he was pushing for a prison sentence, but this week he said he believed it was the only just sentence for the 49-year-old Momberg.

He cited Constitutional Court case law, the Equality Court ruling in the Penny Sparrow trial – also heavily fined for racial slurs – and even the Oscar Pistorius case as reasoning behind why the court should not tolerate Momberg’s racist outbursts and continued use of the k-word.

The word’s injurious history meant its use against the officers was a violation of their human rights, according to Baba.

He argued Momberg’s behaviour during the trial and subsequent insults to the probation officer compiling the report, were evidence enough that Momberg was not remorseful.

He did not think indirect imprisonment would be a harsh enough deterrent to other racists in the country.

“The only suitable sentence in this regard is direct imprisonment without an option of a fine.”

Momberg’s lawyer, Kevin Lawlor, argued Momberg’s mental issues were the reason for her harsh behaviour during the 2016 incident.

He referred to the pre- sentencing report that acknowledged that prison would not be a healthy environment for Momberg.

He reiterated Momberg’s defence during the criminal trial, that she was so traumatised by the smash-andgrab that she did not have full control of her faculties when she began abusing the police officers.

It was because of this that she lacked the intent required to find her guilty of crimen injuria.