THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Not Reportable
Case no: 743/13

In the matter between:

ETHRESIA MARGARETHA PIATER

APPELLANT

and

THE STATE

RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Piater v S (743/13) [2014] ZASCA 134 (25 September
2014)

Coram:
Shongwe, Theron and Zondi JJA

Heard:
12 September 2014

Delivered: 25 September 2014

Summary: Criminal Procedure – appeal against sentence of 4 years‟
imprisonment on 22 counts of fraud – 7 counts of forgery and uttering and one
of theft – approach on appeal – sufficient information must be placed before
court regarding the accused person – the circumstances of the offence – failure
to testify by accused in mitigation – statement from the bar may be accepted –
failure to place sufficient evidence before court cannot in turn benefit the
accused person – no material misdirection found – appeal dismissed.

ORDER
________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: The North Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) (Makgoka J,
Bosman AJ, sitting as court of appeal):
The appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________

Shongwe JA (Theron and Zondi JJA concurring)
[1] This appeal is against sentence only. On 28 September 2009, and
pursuant to a plea of guilty, the appellant was convicted of 22 counts of fraud, 7
counts of forgery and uttering and one count of theft in the regional court,
Heidelberg. On 16 April 2010 she was sentenced to an effective period of 7
years‟ imprisonment, some counts having been taken as one for purposes of
sentence. On 7 December 2012 she successfully appealed to the Pretoria high
court, (Makgoka J, Bosman AJ concurring) which reduced the sentence to 4
years‟ imprisonment. (See S v Piater 2013 (2) SACR 254 (GNP)). This appeal
is with the leave of the high court.

[2] It is necessary to deal with the factual background leading to the
conviction and sentence. The appellant was employed at the magistrates court,
Heidelberg, as a senior administrative clerk. She was responsible for the deposit
account which held sums of money for the benefit of social grant pay-outs.
During the period of November 2005 up and until June 2007 she falsely and
with the intention to defraud represented to officials of the department of justice
that she had paid out certain sums of money to the beneficiaries – whereas in
truth she knew that such moneys had not been paid out to the lawful

beneficiaries but to herself. These moneys amounted in total to R389 253.57.
On 26 July 2007 she withdraw a sum of R60 462.40 from her employer‟s bank
account and misappropriated it – however she returned part of the aforesaid
amount by placing R12 400 in the safe and handing the balance of R48 062.40
over to the investigating officer. This amount had been kept in her safe at home
and she pretended that it was misplaced somewhere in the house.

[3] On 21 August 2007 she forged deposit slips and presented them to her
employer in an attempt to cover up her fraud. This happened on the day she was
arrested.

[4] The appellant challenges the sentence imposed on the basis that the high
court did not give adequate weight to the submission that she was contrite. It
was submitted that she was prepared to recompense the loss and that indeed, she
did pay back all the money.  The appellant contended further that the trial, as
well as the high court, did not accept that she was genuinely remorseful because
she did not testify in mitigation of sentence.

[5] It was further argued by the appellant that despite the finding of the high
court that there was little likelihood that she would reoffend and also the finding
that the prospects of her rehabilitation were good, the high court concluded that
a custodial sentence was the only suitable sentence. It was contended in this
Court that a non-custodial sentence was the appropriate sentence and that the
high court had overemphasised the seriousness of the offences and the interests
of society.

[6] The respondent contended that the high court was lenient, considering
that the appellant was in a position of trust and plotted these offences over a
period of time (about 24 months). Further that the appellant did not take the
courts into her confidence by failing to testify in mitigation, her failure to
disclose what she did with the money indicated she was not genuinely
remorseful and that she did not make full disclosure.

[7] In the present case the appellant availed herself to the correctional centre,
for consideration of correctional supervision as an alternative sentence – after
the trial court referred her. She was also interviewed by a forensic criminologist
(Dr Sonnekus) who prepared a pre-sentencing evaluation report. This was to
enable the trial court to have all the necessary information at its disposal to
assist it in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Unfortunately the
information provided was insufficient and remains so.

[8] In considering an appropriate sentence on appeal the court must exercise
caution not to erode the discretionary powers of the trial court. (See S v Pillay
1977 (4) SA 531 (A) at 535E-F) An appeal court must find a material
misdirection by the high court before it can interfere with the sentence imposed.
It is trite that the power of an appeal court to interfere with a sentence is limited.
Marais JA in S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) para 12D-H observed that:
„A court exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot, in the absence of material misdirection by
the trial court, approach the question of sentence as if it were the trial court and then
substitute the sentence arrived at by it simply because it prefers it. To do so would be to usurp
the sentencing discretion of the trial court. Where material misdirection by the trial court
vitiates its exercise of that discretion, an appellate Court is of course entitled to consider the
question of sentence afresh. In doing so, it assesses sentence as if it were a court of first
instance and the sentence imposed by the trial court has no relevance. As it is said, an

appellate Court is at large. However, even in the absence of material misdirection, an
appellate court may yet be justified in interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
It may do so when the disparity between the sentence of the trial court and the sentence
which the appellate Court would have imposed had it been the trial court is so marked that it
can properly be described as “shocking”, “startling” or “disturbingly inappropriate”. It must
be emphasised that in the latter situation the appellate court is not at large in the sense in
which it is at large in the former. In the latter situation it may not substitute the sentence
which it thinks appropriate merely because it does not accord with the sentence imposed by
the trial court or because it prefers it to that sentence. It may do so only where the difference
is so substantial that it attracts epithets of the kind I have mentioned. No such limitation
exists in the former situation.‟

[9] The court a quo gave a well-reasoned judgment and, in my view, dealt
with all the issues necessary in the circumstances. It juxtaposed many earlier
decisions with this case.  I cannot find any justifiable criticism. Mr Myburgh,
for the appellant, attempted to punch holes in the judgment of the court a quo by
urging us to find that it misdirected itself by committing the same error it
pointed out against the trial court, which is when the court a quo said:
„[40] The fact that the appellant pleaded guilty, is not of itself an indication of remorse. Due
consideration should be accorded to the facts of each particular case. In the present case, the
State had a very strong case against the appellant that a plea of guilty was unavoidable. It is
in that light that her plea should be considered. The other factor militating against a
conclusion that the appellant has shown genuine remorse, is obviously her decision not to
testify in mitigating of sentence. Her evidence would have, once and for all, demonstrated her
candour, by subjecting her statements of being needy, to the scrutiny of cross examination.‟

[10] Mr Myburgh argued that the above statement demonstrates that the court
a quo still took issue with the appellant‟s failure to testify which, to him meant
that the court was of the view that she did not display a complete penitence. It
will be remembered that Makgoka J had said that the trial court was obliged to

accept ex parte statements of the appellant‟s counsel. I do not agree with Mr
Myburgh‟s criticism because, the court a quo concluded that the trial court had
insufficient evidence before it just as the high court was also faced with
insufficient information, and nevertheless it reduced the sentence. Even before
this court, as stated earlier, there was insufficient evidence which fact Mr
Myburgh conceded. This court still does not know what she did with the money.

[11] The appellant was represented by erudite lawyers from the beginning of
her trial. She pleaded guilty, as indicated earlier, and was duty bound to place
evidence before the court in her favour or otherwise. She cannot be heard to
want to benefit from her failure to place such information before the court. I
agree that the appellant should not be criticised for failing to testify but may be
criticised for failing to place sufficient information before court – (see S v
Ferreira & others 2004 (2) SACR 454 (SCA) at 465 para 32). Sufficient
evidence must be placed before the court to enable it to determine an
appropriate sentence. The evidence of Dr Sonnekus on behalf of the appellant
did not advance her case any further because Dr Sonnekus interviewed her
telephonically and did not question her fully on why she stole the money and
what she did with it. The report says the appellant became emotional. That left a
lacuna – in that insufficient evidence was placed before court.

[12] The approach of this court to sentencing in so-called „white collar‟ crimes
is well established. (See S v Sadler 2000 (1) SACR 331 (SCA) paras 11 – 13; S
v Barnard 2004 (1) SACR 191 (SCA) para 15; S v Michele 2010 (1) SACR 131
(SCA) para 10 and S v Olivier 2010 (2) SACR 178 (SCA) para 24.) In Olivier, it
was observed that „direct imprisonment is not uncommon‟, even for first
offenders. Care must be taken that previous similar cases are generally to be

used as a guide not as presenting a hard and fast rule which must be followed. It
is trite law that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits.

[13] In the present case the appellant was 41 years old, at the time of her
sentence by the regional court – She is married with two minor children aged 15
years (boy) and 12 years (girl), respectively. It is common cause that the
appellant was not the sole primary caregiver. Her husband was unemployed at
some stage, but was employed at the time of her sentence. She did repay the full
amount that she stole – which counts in her favour.

[14] What is aggravating is the fact that she stole from her employer. She was
in a position of trust where she was handling money to be paid to the needy. It
was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in committing these crimes she
had been motivated by need and not by greed. I do not agree with this
submission. Her socio-economic situation did not necessitate her involvement in
criminality. It would appear that she was stealing an average of R20 000
monthly, while she and her husband were earning a salary. Logically she did not
need so much money for her family‟s basic needs. She must have used the rest
of the money for personal and/or luxurious items. A morally unacceptable
motive is aggravating, especially where the fraud or theft is motivated by greed
or no explanation at all. (S v Tyers 1997 (1) SACR 261 (NC) at 267g-h.)

[15] I am in agreement with the court a quo that a non-custodial sentence
would undermine the purposes of punishment, which are the deterrence,
rehabilitation and retribution. It was conceded by Mr Myburgh that the offences
are serious, and were carefully planned over a lengthy period and involved a

substantial amount of money. I am unable to conclude that 4 years‟
imprisonment is disproportionate and unbalanced to the gravity of the offences
taken together with the appellant‟s personal circumstances. (See Pienaar v S
(564/11) [2012] ZASCA 60 (2 April 2012) para 9) In Pienaar’s case the court
found a misdirection by the trial court whereas in the present case no such
misdirection exists.

[16] For the above reasons, the appeal must fail.

[17] The following order is made:
The appeal is dismissed.

_____________________________

J B Z SHONGWE

JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances

For the Appellant:
J P Myburgh

Instructed by:

Petro De Witt Attorneys, Heidelberg;

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein.

For the Respondent:
M S Mogoshi

Instructed by:

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria;

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein.
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
25 September 2014
Status:
Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not
form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
* * *
ETHRESIA MARGARETHA PIATER V THE STATE

The SCA today dismissed an appeal against sentence. The appellant had been sentenced by
the regional court – Heidelberg to 7 years’ imprisonment pursuant to her plea of guilty to 22
counts of fraud, 7 counts of forgery and uttering and one count of theft. The total amount
involved was a sum just less than R400 000.

She appealed to the North Gauteng High Court with leave of the regional court. The high
court, after careful consideration of the facts and the law before it, reduced the sentence to 4
years’ imprisonment. Having taken all counts together for purposes of sentence. She appealed
to this court, with leave of the high court.

This court could not find its way through to interfere with the sentence of the high court. It is
trite that the power of the appeal court to interfere with a sentence is limited. The appeal court
can only interfere with a sentence of the high court where the high court has materially
misdirected itself or the sentence is shockingly disproportionate.

The appellant is 41 years old, married with two children. She stole from her employer, where
she was placed in a position of trust dealing with moneys to be paid out to needy people. She

carefully planned this operation and executed it over a lengthy period. The fact that she is a
first offender was considered in her favour. She repaid the full amount stolen, however, the
so-called “white collar” crimes have been treated seriously by our courts and it is not
uncommon to impose a custodial sentence for first offenders. It appears that she used the
money for luxuries – since she failed to disclose what she did with the money. The appeal
failed because this court was unable to find a material misdirection and is of the view that the
sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment is proportionate to the offences convicted of.