(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against sentence, the context of which can be summarised as follows. Both appellants were convicted on 22 March 2011 as accessories after the fact to murder. Second appellant was also convicted on a charge of assault. Both appellants were sentenced on 8 April 2011 to eight years imprisonment and second appellant to a further 12 months imprisonment on the assault charge. Both appellants; have appealed to this court against sentence only.

It then appears that at some point these police officers, in effect disposed of the body of the deceased by throwing it on a dump where other bodies apparently had been found in the past. Thereafter, the events which became relevant to the main charge unfolded. The evidence appears to be that.it was February who had caused the fatal shots to be fired which killed the deceased. It appears further that the two appellants assisted February in carrying the deceased’s body, placing him in the van and later disposing of the body, as I have indicated.
Furthermore, once this had been done, and Jacobs had been; freed, the appellants had assisted February insofar as obfuscating the evidence which would otherwise have led to the discovery of the dastardly deed which, had been committed. Appellant 1 helped February clean the van by shining a torch' on the bloodspots and, therefore, assisted him to remove the incriminating evidence. Furthermore, the appellant 2 assisted in ensuring that their clothes were cleaned and that bloodstains were removed. In short, both appellants contrived to ensure that the crime that had been committed, namely the murder of the deceased, would not go discovered as a result of their efforts to remove incriminating evidence.

Appellant 2 was not married and was 29 years old at the time of the proceedings which gave rise to the sentence. He did have two minor children, with a possibility, as I understand it, 25 that a third child would be born later, presumably on the basis that his girlfriend was pregnant. Although he was unemployed, he had been promised employment in the security industry in the event that a non-carceral sentence was imposed.

Furthermore, the court noted that accessories after the fact are usually treated more leniently than perpetrators. This was taken into, as was the fact of the “cruel and inhuman manner” in which the deceased had been killed. In the light of all of that set of considerations, the sentences I have indicated were imposed.

When these factors are evaluated together with the sentence within the context of appellate jurisdiction, as I have outlined it, the issue remains if these matters are to be taken into account, what weight is to be given to them and if they were not, is the weight of the other factors such as to justify interference or confirmation of the sentence as the case may; be? In this case the court is dealing with a profoundly disturbing and violent event. A man was murdered by a police officer. Two other police officers contrived to assist the murderer by
1. placing the body in the police van;
2. disposing of the body and then in various ways removing incriminating evidence.

I agree:

WAGLAY, J

I agree:

SALDANHA, J

It is so ordered

DAVIS, J