reforming them. Society expects that people who have done wrong must be punished, that is, the retributive purpose in punishment is of importance. [15] In this case the accused persons were in custody and one would have expected that to have had an impact on them to rehabilitate, but went on to commit a serious crime within a Correctional facility. The viciousness of the attack that was perpetrated upon the deceased was barbaric to say the least. [16] Though accused one was indeed a youthful offender having been aged about 17 years at the time of the incident, it must also be noted that young offenders cannot always hide behind their youthfulness when they are guilty of committing serious crimes. The message should be clear to young people that they will not simply be excused by the Courts on account of youthfulness and go scot-free, but where justice will not otherwise be done, they will be held accountable and be punished accordingly for the pain and misery caused to others as a result of serious crimes committed by them. S v K . I respectfully agree with the above sentiments. [17] As I have said, this case is distinguishable from the cases of S v Kauzuu supra and S v Hange, where it was held that the period the accused spend in custody awaiting will lead to a reduction in sentence. It cannot be said herein. Furthermore, none of the accused showed genuine remorse as none of them acknowledged his wrongful conduct towards the deceased. [18] In fairness both Mr Siyomunji for accused one and three and Mr Engelbrecht for accuse two, have conceded that the accused persons cannot escape a prison sentence, but they had asked the Court to be guided by the principles enunciated in S v Sparks and Another , which reads: and, in addition to the matter of punishment, the deterrence aspect calls for a ‘..: measure of emphasis, least others think the game is worth the candle. Nevertheless, the appellants must not be visited with punishment to the point of being broken. Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crimes be fair to the state and to the accused and be blended with a measure of mercy’.
reforming them. Society expects that people who have done wrong must be punished, that is, the retributive purpose in punishment is of importance. [15] In this case the accused persons were in custody and one would have expected that to have had an impact on them to rehabilitate, but went on to commit a serious crime within a Correctional facility. The viciousness of the attack that was perpetrated upon the deceased was barbaric to say the least. [16] Though accused one was indeed a youthful offender having been aged about 17 years at the time of the incident, it must also be noted that young offenders cannot always hide behind their youthfulness when they are guilty of committing serious crimes. The message should be clear to young people that they will not simply be excused by the Courts on account of youthfulness and go scot-free, but where justice will not otherwise be done, they will be held accountable and be punished accordingly for the pain and misery caused to others as a result of serious crimes committed by them. S v K . I respectfully agree with the above sentiments. [17] As I have said, this case is distinguishable from the cases of S v Kauzuu supra and S v Hange, where it was held that the period the accused spend in custody awaiting will lead to a reduction in sentence. It cannot be said herein. Furthermore, none of the accused showed genuine remorse as none of them acknowledged his wrongful conduct towards the deceased. [18] In fairness both Mr Siyomunji for accused one and three and Mr Engelbrecht for accuse two, have conceded that the accused persons cannot escape a prison sentence, but they had asked the Court to be guided by the principles enunciated in S v Sparks and Another , which reads: ‘..: and, in addition to the matter of punishment, the deterrence aspect calls for a measure of emphasis, least others think the game is worth the candle. Nevertheless, the appellants must not be visited with punishment to the point of being broken. Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crimes be fair to the state and to the accused and be blended with a measure of mercy’.
S%20v%20Rukero%20a%20(CC-2012)[2017]%20NAHCMD%20169%20%20(22%20June%202017).docx