S v Uri-Khob ; S v Plaatjies (1) (CRIMINAL 95 of 1996) [1996] NAHC 52 (19 June 1996)
The sentences of direct imprisonment imposed on first offenders for possession of small quantities of cannabis were inappropriate; sentences should provide for suspension or alternatives to imprisonment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NAHC 52
- Parties
- Prosecution: The State; Accused: Alfred Uri-Khob; Accused: Petrus Plaatjies
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Case Number
- CRIMINAL 95 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Review Judgment
- Outcome
- sentences set aside and substituted
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Cannabis, Sentencing of First Offenders, Alternative Sentencing
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The State
Prosecution
Alfred Uri-Khob
Accused
Petrus Plaatjies
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate sentence for first offenders convicted of possession of small quantities of cannabis
- 2 Whether imprisonment without an alternative is justified for first offenders
Ratio Decidendi
The sentences of direct imprisonment imposed on first offenders for possession of small quantities of cannabis were inappropriate; sentences should provide for suspension or alternatives to imprisonment.
Court Disposition
sentences set aside and substituted
Orders
- Each accused is sentenced to four months imprisonment, three months of which are suspended for three years on condition of not being convicted of contravening section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 during the suspension period.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA CASE NO. CR.94/96 and CR 95/96 THE STATE versus ALFRED URI-KHOB (HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO. 1919/96) THE STATE versus PETRUS PLAATJIES (HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO. 1920/96) CORAM: STRYDOM, J. P. et FRANK, J. Delivered on: 1996.06.19 REVIEW JUDGMENT FRANK, J. : These are two review matters. In both the matters the accused were convicted of the possession of dagga or cannabis contrary to the provisions of section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971. Both accused were convicted pursuant to pleas of guilty and the resultant questioning in terms of section 112(1) (b) . Both were first offenders and both were sentenced to seven months imprisonment. In the Uri-Khob case the quantity involved was 10 grams and in the Plaatjies case it was 45 grams. In the Plaatjies case the accused, a 43 year old male, indicated that he was employed and could pay a fine whereas in the Uri-Khob matter the 24 year old male accused did not place anything about his ability to pay a fine before Court. He did however state that he was unemployed. The general rule is that first offenders convicted of the possession of a relatively small quantity of dagga are not sentenced to imprisonment without an alternative if at all possible. In general a first offender faces a fine with imprisonment as the alternative. Where a fine is inappropriate a suspended sentence of imprisonment is normally imposed. As both the accused were sentenced on 5th June, 1996 they have already served part of the sentence imposed and I therefore do not consider the imposition of a fine. In the result in both matters the sentences are set aside and substituted with the following sentence: Each accused is sentenced to four (4) months imprisonment three (3) whereof are suspended for three (3) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 committed within the period of suspension. FRANK, JUDGE I agree STRYDOM, JUDGE-PRESIDENT