S en Baadjies (CC10/2016) [2016] ZAECPEHC 45 (10 August 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAECPEHC 45
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
- Panel
- Chetty
- Case number
- CC10/2016
More details
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
- Panel
- Chetty
- Case number
- CC10/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the murders were premeditated and gang-related, committed with full awareness and intent. The accused's youth and economic activity, while considered, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances as required by the statute. The reckless attack on a police officer further aggravated the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasized the need to send a strong message against such criminal conduct and found no justification to depart from the minimum sentence prescribed by law. Accordingly, life imprisonment was imposed for the murder charges, with additional sentences for related offences.
Court disposition
The accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for two counts of murder, with additional terms of imprisonment for other charges. Sentences for counts 5 and 6 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
Orders
- Count 1: Life imprisonment.
- Count 2: Life imprisonment.
- Count 4: 12 years' imprisonment.
- Count 5: 5 years' imprisonment.
- Count 6: 1 year's imprisonment.
- The sentences for counts 5 and 6 are to run concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
02
Material facts
Parties
Die Staat
ApplicantPreston Baadjies
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Count 4 Imprisonment (years): ZAR 12
- Count 5 Imprisonment (years): ZAR 5
- Count 6 Imprisonment (years): ZAR 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the minimum sentence legislation applies to the murder charges.
- 02
Whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify a lesser sentence than life imprisonment.
- 03
Whether the accused's youth and economic activity constitute mitigating factors sufficient to depart from the prescribed sentence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution argued that the murders were premeditated, committed in broad daylight, and were gang-related. The accused and his accomplices arrived at the scene armed and with knowledge of the victims' presence. The reckless shooting at a police officer further demonstrated disregard for authority. The prosecution contended that no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify a lesser sentence than the statutory minimum.
- Respondent
- The defence submitted that the accused was a young man and economically active, which should be considered as mitigating factors. It was argued that these circumstances warranted a long-term imprisonment rather than life imprisonment, and that the court should find substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 obliges a court to impose a minimum sentence of life imprisonment for certain offences unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist to justify a lesser sentence.
- 02
S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA)
Trivial factors do not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances for deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the murders were premeditated and gang-related, committed with full awareness and intent. The accused's youth and economic activity, while considered, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances as required by the statute. The reckless attack on a police officer further aggravated the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasized the need to send a strong message against such criminal conduct and found no justification to depart from the minimum sentence prescribed by law. Accordingly, life imprisonment was imposed for the murder charges, with additional sentences for related offences.
Obiter and limits
- The prevalence of violent crime in the community has reached a critical point, and the courts have a duty to send a strong message that such conduct will not be tolerated.
- The accused's disregard for authority, as evidenced by the attack on a police officer, reflects a lack of respect for the law and aggravates the seriousness of the offences.
Court disposition
The accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for two counts of murder, with additional terms of imprisonment for other charges. Sentences for counts 5 and 6 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
- Count 1: Life imprisonment.
- Count 2: Life imprisonment.
- Count 4: 12 years' imprisonment.
- Count 5: 5 years' imprisonment.
- Count 6: 1 year's imprisonment.
- The sentences for counts 5 and 6 are to run concurrently with the sentence for count 1.
Source and reliance status
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Judgment
NIE
RAPPORTEERBAAR
IN
DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID AFRIKA
(OOSKAAPSE PLAASLIKE AFDELING, PORT ELIZABETH)
Saak Nr.: CC10/2016
In die saak tussen:
DIE
STAAT
En
PRESTON
BAADJIES
Beskuldigde
Coram: Chetty J
Aangehoor: 8 Augustus 2016
Gelewer: 10 Augustus 2016
VONNIS
Chetty R:
[1] In helder daglig in die namiddagure van 12 Julie 2013, het die beskuldigde, tesame met twee van sy makkers, die oorledenes, gemeld in die klagstaat, met voorbedagte rade doodgeskiet. Dit blyk duidelik uit Reservis Konstable Alexander se getuienis dat die beskuldigde se groep se teenwoordigheid op die tonneel nie toevallig was nie. Hul gedrag onmiddelik nadat hulle uit die huurmotor geklim het toon onteenseglik daaraan dat hulle verwittig was dat die oorledenes op die vlak was. Hulle is daarheen met hul vuurwapens uitgepluk. Daar bestaan ook geen twyfel dat die moorde voortspruit uit bende bedrywighede nie. Konstable Matroos, verbonde aan die Bethelsdorp polisie stasie, was belas om ‘m profiel van vermoedelike verdagtes op te stel. Sy het uiteindelike ‘n foto album van bekende bendelede opgestel waarna Gallant, soos in my vorige uitspraak verwys, die beskuldigde uitgewys het. Jansen het die beskuldigde ook uitgewys as ‘n bendelid en dié getuienis is geensins weerspreek nie. Kort daarna, en nadat Konstable Hendricks homself aangekondig het as ‘n polisieman, is daar gepoog om hom ook dood te skiet. Verskeie skote is na hom gevuur.
[2] Dit is gemenesaak dat die Wet op minimum vonnisse, die Strafwysiging Wet[1](die Wet), van toepassing is met betrekking tot die moord aanklagtes. Artikel 51 (1) van die Wet verplig ‘n hof om ‘n minimum vonnis van lewenslange gevangenisstraf op te lê tensy die hof bevind dat daar wesenlike en dwingende omstandighede bestaan wat ‘n mindere vonnis regverdig. Dit is namens die beskuldigde aangevoer dat sodaninge omstandighede wel bestaan en dat lang termyn gevangenisstraf aangewese sal wees.
[3] Dit is inderdaad so dat die beskuldigde nog ‘n jong man is en dat hy, soos aangevoer, ekonomies aktief was. Alhowel hierdié
faktore tot ‘n mate as versagtend beskou kan word, voldoen dit nie, na my mening, aan die vereistes nie. Soos in S v Malgas[2] tereg beklemtoon, niksduidende faktore geld glad nie. Die vlaag van misdaad wat daagliks in die gemeenskap uitspeel het ‘n kritieke punt bereik en berus daar ‘n plig op die howe om ‘n sterk boodskap uit te stuur dat hierdie tipe moedswilligheid gaan nie. en sal nie geduld word nie. Die roekeloosheid waarop daar op Konstable Hendricks gevuur is’ dui ook daarop dat die bendelede geen respek vir die gesag het nie. Na my mening, is die faktore waarop staat gemaak is, nie wesenlik en dwingend wat ‘n mindere vonnis regverdig nie.
[4] Die beskuldigde word soos volg gevonnis:
[4.1] Aanklag 1 - lewenslange gevangenisstraf;
[4.2] Aanklag 2 - lewenslange gevangenisstraf;
[4.3] Aanklag 4 - 12 jaar gevangenisstraf;
[4.4] Aanklag 5 - 5 jaar gevangenisstraf;
[4.5] Aanklag 6 - 1 jaar gevangenisstraf.
Ek gelas dat die vonnis op aanklagte 5 en 6 saamloop met die vonnis op aanklag 1.
______
D.
CHETTY
REGTER
VAN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF
[1] Wet Nr, 105 van 1997
[2] 2001(1) SASV 469 SCA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.