IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

DATE								30 MAY 2008

In the matter between:
MARIUS ARENDSE						Appellant
and

JUDGMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted in the Wynberg Magistrate's Court as follows.

	Count 1 - murder, the shooting and killing of one Bradley Galant
	Count 2 - attempted murder for shooting and attempting to kill the complainant Thelma Dalmen 
	Count 3 - attempted murder for shooting and attempting to kill the complainant Deon Davids. 
	Count 4 - unlawful possession of a firearm 
	Count 5 - unlawful possession of ammunition 
He was 	sentenced as follows:

Count 1 - 15 years' imprisonment
Count 2 - five years' imprisonment Count 3 - five years' imprisonment Count 4 and 5 - three years' imprisonment The sentences on counts 4 and 5 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence impose in respect of count 1. He was thus sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 25 years.

[2] After being convicted and sentenced, appellant sought leave to appeal, which was refused. The appellant then petitioned this Court for leave. The petition was partly successful in that the appellant was granted leave to appeal against his sentence

[3] As recorded earlier, the appellant was sentenced to an effective 25 years' imprisonment. When one has regard to the crimes for which he was convicted, can this term of imprisonment be said to be one which induces a sense of shock? The appellant shot and killed Bradley Ga!ant in cofd blood. His appetite unsatisfied, he went on to shoot Thelman Dalmen simply because she pleaded with htm not to do so. Deon Davids, who happened to be in the house, was also not spared. It was their good fortune that neither of them were killed.   For these crimes the imposition of sentences of 15 years, five years and five years cannot be said to be inappropriate.

[6] In this matter, appellant's youth and the fact that he was incarcerated for over 15 months does constitute substantial and compelling circumstances for the Court not to be bound by the minimum sentence the Court was required to impose in terms of the Act. However, notwithstanding the substantial and compelling circumstances, I am satisfied that the imposition of a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was not inappropriate.

Count 1-15 years' imprisonment
Count 2 - five years' imprisonment
Count 3 - five years' imprisonment
Counts 4 and 5 - three years' imprisonment
The sentences imposed in respect of counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 should run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of count 1.