THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Not reportable

CASE  NO: 650/06

In the matter between :

ROYCHAND RAMDEO
Appellant

and

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before:
NUGENT, JAFTA JJA & SNYDERS AJA
Heard:
21 MAY 2007
Delivered:
29 MAY 2007
Summary:

Sentence – fraud – issuing false roadworthy certificates.

Neutral citation:
This judgment may be referred to as Ramdeo v Director of Public
Prosecutions [2007] SCA 65 (RSA)
______________________________________________________________________________

NUGENT  JA

NUGENT JA:
[1] The appellant and Mr Derrick Xulu were charged together and convicted
upon pleas of guilty on four counts of fraud in the magistrate’s court for the
district of Pietermartizburg.  The magistrate took the offences together for
purposes of sentence and sentenced each to 5 years’ imprisonment that was
conditionally suspended for 5 years.  One of the conditions of suspension in
each case was that the sum of R5 000 be paid to the South African Revenue
Service.  The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the High Court at
Pietermaritzburg against the sentence that was imposed upon the appellant. On
appeal the high court (Alkema AJ and Combrink J) increased the sentence to 5
years’ imprisonment.  The appellant now appeals against that order.

[2] The National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 prohibits a motor vehicle from
being operated on a public road unless it has met the requirements for the issue
of a roadworthy certificate.  Roadworthy certificates may be issued by testing
stations that have been registered in terms of the Act.  The appellant was
employed by such a testing station as a motor vehicle examiner.  On four
occasions (on 5 November 2001, on 6 November 2001, on 17 April 2002, and
on 23 April 2002) the appellant held out that he had inspected a vehicle (the
same two vehicles, each on two occasions) and that he had completed a
roadworthiness test sheet as a result of that inspection.  On the strength of the
information contained in the roadworthiness test sheet on each occasion a
roadworthy certificate was issued.  In truth the appellant had not inspected the
relevant vehicle at all and the roadworthiness test sheet that he completed was
false.  On each occasion Xulu facilitated the transaction, for which Xulu
received a fee from the person for whom the roadworthy certificate was issued.

[3] It is well established that sentence is a matter for the discretion of the
sentencing court, and that a court of appeal may not interfere with the exercise
of that discretion unless it is satisfied that the discretion was not properly
exercised.  In appropriate circumstances the sentence itself might justify the
inference that the sentencing court did not properly exercise its discretion, either
by giving undue weight to some factors at the expense of others, or by not
according sufficient weight to some of them.

[4] In the present case the facts that I have outlined above were supplemented
by other evidence led by the state.  The evidence of a senior traffic officer and
examiner of vehicles was that at the time the offences occurred the issue of
fraudulent roadworthy certificates was common, particularly in the public
transport industry in the Natal midlands.  A research project had concluded that
a substantial number of vehicles that were involved in accidents were
unroadworthy.  One of the problems that was identified was that certificates of
roadworthiness were being fraudulently issued, without examination of the
vehicles concerned, and steps had been taken to apprehend offenders.

[5] At the time of his conviction the appellant was 45 years old, married with
three children, employed as a cashier earning R2 000 per month, and was a first
offender.  His co-accused, Xulu, was in substantially the same position.

[6] To facilitate the operation of unroadworthy vehicles on public roads, as
the appellant did, clearly creates the potential for serious consequences to
members of the public, and I agree with the court below that the sentence that
was imposed by the magistrate was altogether inappropriate.  But it was

submitted on behalf of the appellant that the court below erred itself in imposing
a sentence that was excessively harsh.

[7] It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that it would be offensive to
ordinary notions of justice if the sentences received by the appellant and Xulu
were materially disparate, bearing in mind that they were both convicted of the
same offences.  Although they were both convicted of the same offences it does
not follow that the role that each played was equally culpable.  It was the
responsibility of the appellant to ensure that vehicles were roadworthy before a
certificate of roadworthiness was issued.  That placed him in a position of trust
that called upon him to resist being importuned by people like Xulu.  In my
view the breach by the appellant of his responsibilities made him considerably
more culpable than Xulu and I see every reason to differentiate between them
when it comes to sentence.  Moreover, if the sentence that was imposed upon
Xulu was inappropriately light, I do not think the state can be faulted for having
appealed only against the sentence that was imposed upon the appellant, bearing
in mind the greater culpability of his actions.  If that means that Xulu escapes
with an inappropriately light sentence I do not think that is to be remedied by
similarly imposing an inappropriate sentence on the appellant.

[8] Although the material that was placed before the magistrate in that regard
was scanty I accept that the appellant was an employee and that his employer is
likely to have been party to his conduct.  It was submitted in the circumstances
that it was his employer who was the primary villain.  Perhaps that is so but
there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was not a willing participant in
his employer’s conduct, as his counsel suggested.  On the contrary, the fact that
the offences were committed some 5 months apart indicates, in the absence of

any evidence to the contrary, that the appellant was well aware of what he was
doing, and was a willing participant in the fraud.

[9] The offences that were committed by the appellant were undoubtedly
serious, as the court below found, and demanded a custodial sentence.  But in
my view the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment for 3 years, which is
sufficiently disparate from the sentence that was imposed as to warrant the
inference that the court below accorded excessive weight to the seriousness of
the offence at the expense of the circumstances of the appellant.

[10] Accordingly the appeal is upheld.  The order of the court below is set
aside and the following is substituted:
‘The appeal is upheld.  The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set
aside and substituted with a sentence of 3 (three) years’ imprisonment.’

______________________
RW NUGENT
JUDGE OF APPEAL

CONCUR:
JAFTA JA)
SNYDERS AJA)