ƒ‘ƒǯ• ƒ’’‡ƒŽ ‘ …‘˜‹…–‹‘
in this jurisdiction was about 25 years and that was generally for heinous violent crimes or for a repeat offender. Judge Mamba observed that there was no such elements that were shown to be present in this appeal.
“I am of the firm view that the totality of the aggregate sentences imposed on the appellants in this case, are manifestly excessive,” said the court.
Judge Mamba said he associated himself with the views of Judge Tebbutt as expressed in Tlhabiwa’s case where he stated that: “It is so excessively disparate to the offences’ seriousness, though they may be as to amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. He stated that that these remarks were relevant and starkly applicable in this appeal.’’
Seriousness
He further pointed out that in S vs Young, Judge Trollip said: “Where multiple counts are closely connected or similar in point of time, nature, seriousness or otherwise, it is sometimes a useful, practical way of ensuring that the punishment imposed is not unnecessarily duplicated, or its cumulative effect is not too harsh on the accused. In the aforementioned matter, according to Judge Mamba, the court concluded by noting that: “Punishing a convicted person should not be likened to taking revenge. It must have all the elements and purposes of punishment, prevention, retribution, individual and general deterrence and rehabilitation.’’
He said in order to ameliorate the harshness; he would adjust the sentence in the following manner. On count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,18 the apex
court sentenced Dlamini to two years imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
On count sentence, he was sentenced to pay a fine of E5 000 failing which he would undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. On Count 10, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,1,20,21,22,23, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30 and 31, he was sentenced to pay a fine of E500, failing which to serve a custodial term of six month. These sentences were ordered to run consecutively (cumulatively E10 000 or 10 years of imprisonment.
“The sentences in one and two above are to run consecutively. Effectively this means that if the appellant pays the fine of E10 000, he shall serve the period of imprisonment in one above.
Concurrently
The sentences imposed in one, one and three shall run concurrently. Effectively, this translates to a fine of E13 500 or custodial terms of 27 months,” read part of the judgment.
In its judgment the Supreme Court noted that Dlamini was arrested and detained on January 23, 2013 and was released on bail on February 24, 2013. The court ordered that, the period of one month spent by Dlamini in custody should be deducted from the final custodial term of imprisonment meted out against him. According to the court, this would be achieved by backdating his sentence by one moth, calculated from August 10, 2017, that being the date his bail was cancelled or terminated after pleading. The Crown was represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Israel Magagula, while appearing for the appellants was Advocate Combrink who had been instructed by Linda Dlamini of Linda Dlamini and Associates.