[6] The penalty for dealing in cocaine is stipulated in the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances and Rehabilitations Act 41 of 1971, section 2 (d) (i), provides: the case of a fist conviction for a contravention of any provision of paragraph (a) “in or (c), to a fine not exceeding thirty thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.” [7] Dealing in cocaine is a serious crime. In S v Sibonyoni 2001 NR 22 at 25 Hoff AJ (as he then was) said the following: can be no doubt that dealing in cocaine “there is a serious crime and that drug dealers are unscrupulous criminals and further that the courts have a duty to protect members of society from exploitation by these elements but a court in considering an appropriate sentence must be mindful also of the personal circumstances of the accused and the maximum penalties prescribed by the legislature” [8] From the record, it is very clear that the presiding officer considered the personal circumstances of the appellant and other relevant factors. The appellant in his grounds of appeal further stated that was a trap situation’ ‘this and that is no evidence whatsoever placed before court that appellant was a ‘there drug dealer and that there was no reason whatsoever to have set a trap for him’ Unfortunately for the appellant, he pleaded guilty and his appeal is against sentence and not against conviction and the court is bound by his notice of appeal against sentence only. [9] The scourge of drug abuse is on the increase in our society and the devastating effect of drug abuse on members of our society is there for everyone to see. The courts must join forces with law enforcement agencies in combating that evil by imposing harsh sentences on drug dealers and by so doing send a strong message to drug dealers that they will be dealt with severely. [10] In my view the magistrate exercised his discretion judicially in sentencing the appellant and the sentence imposed is not startlingly inappropriate nor does it induces a sense of shock considering the seriousness of the crime. In fact the appellant was lucky to have been sentenced as he was considering that he committed the offence twice and also considering the sentences imposed in similar cases by this Court.
[6] The penalty for dealing in cocaine is stipulated in the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances and Rehabilitations Act 41 of 1971, section 2 (d) (i), provides: “in the case of a fist conviction for a contravention of any provision of paragraph (a) or (c), to a fine not exceeding thirty thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.” [7] Dealing in cocaine is a serious crime. In S v Sibonyoni 2001 NR 22 at 25 Hoff AJ (as he then was) said the following: “there can be no doubt that dealing in cocaine is a serious crime and that drug dealers are unscrupulous criminals and further that the courts have a duty to protect members of society from exploitation by these elements but a court in considering an appropriate sentence must be mindful also of the personal circumstances of the accused and the maximum penalties prescribed by the legislature” [8] From the record, it is very clear that the presiding officer considered the personal circumstances of the appellant and other relevant factors. The appellant in his grounds of appeal further stated that ‘this was a trap situation’ and that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever placed before court that appellant was a drug dealer and that there was no reason whatsoever to have set a trap for him’ Unfortunately for the appellant, he pleaded guilty and his appeal is against sentence and not against conviction and the court is bound by his notice of appeal against sentence only. [9] The scourge of drug abuse is on the increase in our society and the devastating effect of drug abuse on members of our society is there for everyone to see. The courts must join forces with law enforcement agencies in combating that evil by imposing harsh sentences on drug dealers and by so doing send a strong message to drug dealers that they will be dealt with severely. [10] In my view the magistrate exercised his discretion judicially in sentencing the appellant and the sentence imposed is not startlingly inappropriate nor does it induces a sense of shock considering the seriousness of the crime. In fact the appellant was lucky to have been sentenced as he was considering that he committed the offence twice and also considering the sentences imposed in similar cases by this Court.
Ude%20v%20State%20(CA%2012-2011)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%20149%20(7%20June%202013).docx