In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

[7] It is the existence of previous convictions which influenced the magistrates mind in deciding to sentence the appellant to three years' imprisonment for the theft of R850 cash. The mere fact that the appellant has previous convictions does not justify the sentence imposed He had to be sentenced for the offence he committed and not for his previous convictions. However, having said that, one cannot say that an amount of R850 is minimal or so small to the extent that three years' imprisonment is not justifiable.

[10] In the result the appeal against sentence succeeds. The sentence is set aside and is substituted with the following;
"The accused is sentenced to undergo a period of 24 months' imprisonment. The sentence is antedated to 31 January 2007".

ZONDI, J

VAN REENEN. J