IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

JUDGMENT

BUIKMAN. A J:

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of housebreaking and theft and prepared a written plea in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51/1977. In this statement the appellant contended that:
1.	On 25 December 2007 he was walking with accused number 1, who told him to enter the premises of Mr Appolis, as it was not locked:
2.	Accused number 1 pushed the door open.
3.	He took a pair of shoes and accused number 1 took a hot water bottle.

On 12 June 2008 the appellant was granted feave to appeal against his sentence and was granted bail pending his appeal. The appellant did not testify tn respect of the issue of sentence. He chose rather to address the Court regarding his personal circumstances, through his legal representative, as follows:
1.	The appellant was 18 years of age at the time of the crime.
2.	He has no children or dependants.
3.	He resides with his mother and stepfather.
4.	He completed Standard 8 at school
5.	He works at the vineyards at Strandveld Agri, for which he receives R70,00 per day.
6.	He uses his wages to contribute towards the cost of food at home.
7.	His mother was supportive of him and was present during the hearing.
8.	He accepted responsibility for what he had done, pleaded guilty to the offence and did not waste the Court's time.
9.	He  played  a  lesser role  in  the   housebreaking  than accused number 1.
10.	He has no previous convictions.
11.	He did not own a firearm and was not planning to apply for the license to own a firearm.
12.	There was no damage caused to the property of Mr Appolis and the shoes stoten by the appellant were returned to the complainant's possession.

Although it is contended for in the appellant's heads of argument, prepared by his legal representative, that there were recommendations by a probation officer to the effect that the appeltant should be sentenced to correctional supervision in accordance with section 276(1)(a) of Act 51/1977, no reference is made at all to a probation officer's report in the record of the proceedings. It was not referred to by the Court and does not form part of the exhibits. According to the magistrate, in the reasons he furnished for his sentence, he did, however, consider correctional supervision as an alternative sentence.

I am satisfied that the magistrate did not consider the possibility of other sentencing options. Having regard to the paucity of information available to him at the time regarding the personal circumstances of the appellant, I am of the view that the magistrate ought, at the very least, to have requested the assistance of correctional officers, social workers or probation officers to help him decide on an appropriate sentence. The effect of the sentence handed down by the Trial Court is that the imprisonment of the appellant will seriously impact on his future reintegration into society.

The Trial Court found that the offence for which the appellant had been convicted was extremely prevalent in our time and that the Court had to take into account that the victims of housebreaking are becoming frustrated to the extent that they are prepared to take the law into their own hands. Notwithstanding the appellant's personal circumstances, the Court found that the only suitable sentence was direct imprisonment. Although the Trial Court held that the interests of justice dictate that the Court should not just hand out imprisonment sentences "left and right" this is precisely what the magistrate did. Undue weight was given to the seriousness of the offence and the interests of the community and accordingly the sentence is, in my view, flawed. The State correctly conceded that the sentence is inappropriate and should be substituted with a lesser form of punishment.

BUIKMAN, AJ

I agree