IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between: 

and
THE STATE							Respondent

JUDGMENT

The charges against appellant came about as follows: The complainant was on his way to his business at Philippi and hailed a taxi to take him there. The appellant approached him after he had stopped the taxi and fired some shots in the complainant's direction. Thereupon the complainant produced his own firearm and returned fire. This caused appellant to run away, but unfortunately for him there were members of the police on patrol in the vicinity and they apprehended him. Nobody was injured as a consequence of the shooting, and the police confiscated appellant's firearm. At the trial, the magistrate correctly rejected the appellant's exculpatory version.

It is trite that a court of appeal should only interfere with the exercise of the sentencing jurisdiction of a trial court in circumstances where there has been a misdirection on the part of the presiding officer, or where the sentence imposed by the trial court differs substantially from the sentence which the court of appeal would have imposed, had it been the court of first instance.

1.	
2.	The appellant is a first offender. Courts generally strive to keep youthful first offenders out of jail, or to incarcerate them for the shortest possible period of time.
3.	
4.	

The offences committed are no doubt of a very serious nature, but it has to be borne in mind, as I already mentioned, that fortunately no injuries were caused and the firearm was recovered    I do, however, agree with the   magistrate that a substantial period of imprisonment is called for. Our society is plagued by violent crimes committed with the aid of unlicensed firearms. Discharging a firearm in an urban area in these circumstances, can have tragic consequences. The community is entitled to expect that the courts will impose sentences which would deter others from committing similar crimes.

3.	In terms of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, it is ordered that the sentence imposed on count 2 is to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on
count 1.

are antedated to 27 July 2007. 

MCCLARTY, J