S v Hendricks en 'n Ander (224/1989) [1990] ZASCA 94 (18 September 1990)

S v Hendricks en 'n Ander (224/1989) [1990] ZASCA 94 (18 September 1990)

The court found that the evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the second appellant intended to acquire the dagga and Mandrax for his own use, rather than for distribution. The mere quantity of drugs and the arrangements made were not sufficient to prove dealing beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction for dealing was set aside and replaced with a conviction for attempted possession. Regarding sentence, the court held that the first appellant's role was limited to assisting the second appellant, who was her partner, and that her moral blameworthiness was less than that of a typical dealer. The sentences imposed by the trial court were found to be excessive...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 94
Parties
Appellant: Katy Hendricks; Appellant: Christiaan Arendse; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 1990
Case Number
224/1989
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeals upheld to the extent that the convictions and sentences were substituted as set out below.
Judges
Van Heerden, Nicholas, Friedman
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Attempt, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Drug Offences Attempt Sentencing Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katy Hendricks

Appellant

Christiaan Arendse

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second appellant was correctly convicted of dealing in prohibited substances under section 2(a) of Act 41 of 1971.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established that the second appellant intended to acquire the drugs for personal use or for distribution.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed on both appellants were appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the second appellant intended to acquire the dagga and Mandrax for his own use, rather than for distribution. The mere quantity of drugs and the arrangements made were not sufficient to prove dealing beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction for dealing was set aside and replaced with a conviction for attempted possession. Regarding sentence, the court held that the first appellant's role was limited to assisting the second appellant, who was her partner, and that her moral blameworthiness was less than that of a typical dealer. The sentences imposed by the trial court were found to be excessive...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld to the extent that the convictions and sentences were substituted as set out below.

Orders

  • The sentence of the first appellant is set aside and replaced with a sentence of two years' imprisonment.
  • The conviction and sentence of the second appellant are set aside and replaced with a conviction for attempted contravention of section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 and a sentence of two years' imprisonment.