(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NUMBER:	A237/2010
DATE:	26 NOVEMBER 2010
In the matter between: 

and

JUDGMENT

He proposed to the court that in respect of counts 1 and 2, a sentence of 15 years should be imposed on each count, but that five years of that sentence should be suspended and that the two counts should be regarded as one. He further proposed that in respect of count 3 a sentence of five years should be imposed to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of counts 1 and 2. In effect, therefore, the prosecutor   was    proposing    a    sentence    of   ten    years imprisonment in respect of all three counts.

The magistrate found that all three complainants testified they were traumatised by the experience and took into account that all three of them had permanently lost their cell phones. Taking into account all these factors, the magistrate then took counts 1 and 2 together for the purposes of sentence and imposed a sentence of 15 years in respect of these two counts. She further sentenced appellant to another five years imprisonment in respect of count 3 so that effectively appellant would have to serve 20 years imprisonment in respect of these three offences. This was double the period that the prosecutor himself had proposed.

When the Court considers a suitable sentence in a particular case and there is a gross disparity between the sentence the Court would have imposed and the sentence which the magistrate imposed, then the Court should interfere and I believe this is such a case. Although the appellant's personal circumstances are very favourable, the sentencing court must also take into account the interests of society and the nature and seriousness of the offence. As far as the latter is concerned, what the evidence reveals is that the appellant was systematically preying on women in the Thornton area by robbing them in broad daylight of their cell phones, none of which were recovered.

As far as sentence is concerned, the robberies which were the subject of counts 1 and 2 took place only minutes apart and the magistrate properly took them together for the purposes of sentence. However, the appellant committed a third robbery a week later and in the circumstances must be sentenced separately on this count. It would, in my view, be salutary for a part of the appellant's sentence to be suspended so as to put him on notice that should he again relapse in future he will pay a heavy penalty.

1. The appeal against sentence is upheld.
2. The sentence imposed in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3 are set aside and replaced with the following:

(c) When calculating the date upon which the appellant's effective sentence of 6 (six) years is to expire, 22 (twenty two) months should be deducted therefrom.

WEINKOVE, AJ