A 19-year-old Grahamstown resident was sentenced to three years imprisonment and declared unfit to possess a firearm under the Firearm Act in the Grahamstown Magistrate’s Court last week.
A 19-year-old Grahamstown resident was sentenced to three years imprisonment and declared unfit to possess a firearm under the Firearm Act in the Grahamstown Magistrate’s Court last week.
The accused, Siyabonga Thembani, did not plead guilty to the three counts of robbery that were laid against him but the court ruled that the witnesses’ testimonies were accurate.
The court found that the three charges of robbery that were laid against the accused are true and that the accused did not show remorse for his actions or mercy to the complainants.
The first count of robbery took place on 2 May 2009 where he stole R450 from the complainant. No injuries were sustained. On the second count, which took place on 9 August 2009, the complainant sustained injuries after the accused walked past him and hit him on the back of the head and he fell to the ground.
The accused then proceeded to remove the complainant’s takkies at the value of R399.99 and R35 from his pocket.
He was seen by another witness who testified in court. On 19 September 2009, the third count, the accused threatened the complainant, who was 16 years old at the time, with a knife and robbed him of R100.
The court ruled that it must take the interest of society into consideration and that robbery is prevalent in the area of jurisdiction.
The state prosecutor said that the identity of the accused in all three counts does not appear to be in question. He added that the state cannot criticise the witnesses’ testimonies and the accused knows the witnesses well.
He further argued that the witnesses had testified honestly and frankly. The defence attorney’s arguments that there was insufficient light for the witnesses to accurately identify the accused in the first two counts and that some of the witnesses had been under the influence of alcohol was overruled by the court.
The court found all the witnesses’ identification of the accused as valid. The court also took into consideration that on all counts the witnesses were in close proximity to the accused.
The court also ruled that there appeared to be no bad blood between the witnesses and the accused for them to unjustly frame him for these crimes.
The state prosecutor argued that the accused should be sentenced for two years per count. The defence attorney argued that in prison, the accused will be exposed to gangs and although he will be taught skills, he will receive little rehabilitation.
He also asked the court to take into account that the accused is undergoing circumcision ceremonies. The court ruled that each of these counts are serious offences and that each count could see a serving time of three years.
The court took into account that the accused has been in custody for seven-and-a-half months already. The court also took into consideration that the accused is “still young” and living with his mother, twin brother and sister.
The court also ruled that it was strange that the accused called no witnesses even though the witnesses were available. All three counts were taken for the purpose of sentence and the accused was given three years imprisonment.
The court ruled that the accused is given leniency in order for him to rehabilitate himself and warned that if he repeats such crimes he will go to the regional court.
The accused is not a first offender as he was convicted on 29 December 2007 for a crime in which violence was also used. He was given a suspended sentence.
