IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
HELD AT MBABANE CRIM. CASE NO. 227/2007
In the matter between:
REX
vs
MGCIBELO SINISELA 1ST ACCUSED
WONDER MUZI ZWANE 2ND ACCUSED
CORAM : Q.M. MABUZA -J
FOR THE CROWN : MR. B. MAGAGULA OF THE
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
FOR THE ACCUSED : IN PERSON
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
10/02/2011
[1] Having found Accused 1 guilty in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3 and Accused 2 guilty in respect of Count 4, I now have to pass sentence on both accused persons.
[2] In passing sentence against Accused 1, I have taken the following factors into account.
[3] The Crime
I have taken Count 1 and Count 2 as one for the purpose of sentencing. The crime of robbery is prevalent in our society and this one is accompanied by aggravated assault. The complainant was badly assaulted in his own house and many of his household possessions were stolen including computers as well as his motor vehicle.
[4] The Victim
The complainant’s sanctuary which he called his home was broken into without any regard that he was at home and asleep. He was tied up so that he could not escape to save himself and to call for help. He was badly injured as a result of the assault he almost lost the use of one eye. His eye is still affected to this day. He was badly traumatised. He was kidnapped, placed in the boot of his car half naked with only a pair of briefs on. He stayed in the boot of the car while the robbers drove all the way from Malkerns to Nkambeni where he was unceremoniously dumped in the cold early hours of the morning. If it had not been for the kindness of some good people he would have been ultimately worse off.
[5] The interests of society.
Society has placed its confidence in the courts to protect them and to mete out appropriate sentences when their privacy and sensibilities have been violated. A person’s home is his castle where peace and tranquillity are expected to reign supreme. Society expects the courts to punish offenders such as the Accused as a lesson to would be offenders to desist from crime.
[6] The personal circumstances of Accused 1.
The Accused is 29 years old. In mitigation he asked to be warned and given a suspended sentence so that he rehabilitates himself. He assured the court that he would never darken the doors of this court ever again. Before he was arrested he used to earn E2500.00 per month selling cigarettes during a good month. He used the dagga he was found in possession of for personal use.
He had four previous convictions of house breaking and theft; two of which are relevant. The previous convictions were put to Accused 1 and he admitted them. In as much as only two previous offences are relevant, the court cannot ignore the fact that even the irrelevant ones are for house breaking and theft. This shows a propensity for house breaking and theft by Accused 1. The present case is also similar in that he broke and entered into the complainants house and stole property belonging to the complainant. The only difference is that this time the offence was of a greater magnitude and was accompanied by aggravating factors. The life of the complainant was almost lost. A custodial sentence is my view in order and it will give the Accused time to reflect upon changing his lifestyle. Accused 1 is still young enough to turn his life around and to become a useful member of society.
[7] The sentence.
I have taken Count 1 and Count 2 as one for the purpose of sentence. I have done so for the reason that the offences occurred on the same day and happened simultaneously. Furthermore the complainant’s goods were recovered. Consequently I shall not suspend any portion of the sentence.
I view the vicious assault on the complainant as an aggravating circumstance and a custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. In the accused favour is also the fact that most of the stolen things were recovered.
In the event I order as follows:
(a) Count 1 and Count 2
The above counts are taken as one for the purpose of sentence. Accused 1 is sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment without an option of a fine. The sentence is backdated to the 17th July 2006 the date on which Accused 1 was arrested.
(b) Count 3
Accused 1 is sentenced to the payment of a fine of E60.00 (Sixty Emalangeni) and in default thereof is sentenced to 60 days imprisonment; such sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence in Counts 1 and 2 hereinabove.
(c) Count 4
Accused 2 is sentenced to the payment of a fine of E500.00 (Five hundred Emalangeni) and in default thereof is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. The sentence is wholly suspended unconditionally.
Q.M. MABUZA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
