S v Mfete (Sentence) (CC15/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 895 (12 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 895
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mosopa
- Case number
- CC15/2024
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mosopa
- Case number
- CC15/2024
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court accepted the sentence agreement between the state and the accused, finding it to be just under the circumstances. The accused, a police officer, committed a brutal murder of a pregnant woman in public, demonstrating disregard for the law and the rights of women. The aggravating factors, including the use of a service pistol and the impact on the victim's family and witnesses, warranted a severe sentence. The court imposed 35 years' imprisonment, with 5 years suspended for 5 years, and declared the accused unfit to possess a firearm under the Firearms Control Act.
Court disposition
The accused is sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, of which 5 years is suspended for 5 years, and is declared unfit to possess a firearm.
Orders
- The accused will serve an effective sentence of 30 years' imprisonment.
- The accused is declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of section 103 of Act 60 of 2000.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantJohannes Tebogo Mfete
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment (effective): 30
- Imprisonment (total): 35
- Suspended Sentence (years): 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
What is the appropriate sentence for the accused, who was convicted of murder under aggravating circumstances.
- 02
Should the sentence agreement reached between the state and the accused be accepted by the court.
- 03
Is the accused fit to possess a firearm under the Firearms Control Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The state presented aggravating circumstances, including the brutal murder of a pregnant woman by the accused, a police officer, using a firearm in public. The state argued for a severe sentence to reflect the seriousness of gender-based violence and the breach of public trust.
- Respondent
- The accused relied on a sentence agreement reached with the state, expressing remorse and referencing personal circumstances, such as being told he was not the biological father of the child. The accused sought leniency and acceptance of the agreed sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA)
Sentences for murder, especially involving gender-based violence and abuse of police authority, must reflect the seriousness of the offence and serve as a deterrent.
- 02
Section 103 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000
A court may declare an accused unfit to possess a firearm if convicted of a violent offence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court accepted the sentence agreement between the state and the accused, finding it to be just under the circumstances. The accused, a police officer, committed a brutal murder of a pregnant woman in public, demonstrating disregard for the law and the rights of women. The aggravating factors, including the use of a service pistol and the impact on the victim's family and witnesses, warranted a severe sentence. The court imposed 35 years' imprisonment, with 5 years suspended for 5 years, and declared the accused unfit to possess a firearm under the Firearms Control Act.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed concern about the prevalence of gender-based violence and the need for sentences that deter such conduct.
- The judge noted the trauma experienced by witnesses to the murder and the impact on the accused's child, who will grow up without a father.
Court disposition
The accused is sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, of which 5 years is suspended for 5 years, and is declared unfit to possess a firearm.
- The accused will serve an effective sentence of 30 years' imprisonment.
- The accused is declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of section 103 of Act 60 of 2000.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC15/2024
DATE: 16-08-2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 12/09/2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between
THE
STATE
and
JOHANNES TEBOGO
MFETE
Accused
SENTENCE
MOSOPA, J: Mr Mfete, it is unfortunate that I will be sentencing you when the country is celebrating the Women's month. Women in this country have been at all material times treated as second-class citizens.
Male chauvinism and patriarchy have always been the order of the day in this country, Gender-based violence is a very serious crime in this country. Despite measures taken by the government in trying to educate people, like yourself to respect the privacy and the independence of women. It appears to have fallen on deaf ears. You do not have respect for women. I cannot imagine how you can shoot a pregnant woman multiple times, a defenceless person.
I am looking at the post-mortem photos as they were presented by the state. Just a rough scan. I have seen that the unborn child was also injured because of your actions.
You have little respect for the law, Mr Mfete. You were employed as a police officer, a law enforcement officer, you do corruption, and you were released on warning; you further go and commit an offence. You must consider yourself to be lucky.
I am not bound by this sentence agreement, but my hands are now tied, because I am willing to accept this sentence agreement. If it was not for this agreement, we could have gone for an ultimate penalty.
You are still a young man, but your behaviour does not accord with your age. As a trained police officer, you should have known better. But like I have said, you have got little respect for the law. You have little respect to the right to human dignity and security of women. The facts are not clear in this matter, but it appears that you might have used this service pistol to shoot and kill the deceased.
The sentence that I am going to impose in terms of the agreement that you reached with the state. I want it to be a sentence that will make you understand that issues are not resolved violently. I want you to be a better person when you come out of prison. I hope that you will take advantage of what is presented at prison in respect of programs which you are offered, especially, anger management.
The fact that you were told that you are not the biological father of the child. In my considered view, could have assisted you in a sense that if maybe you had paid maintenance for that child, you had a remedy of claiming back whatever you have contributed towards the child. Because it was coming from the deceased herself that you are not the biological father. But you opted to use a gun.
You do not respect the privacy of other people. You go to the workplace of the deceased carrying a loaded firearm and in full view of people, you brutally and mercilessly shot and kill the deceased. You do not know the trauma that the people who witnessed this merciless killing of the deceased have endured. I am looking at the scene photo album. It shows that the deceased has just arrived at the parking lot when she was confronted with this rain of bullets. What type of a behaviour is this, Mr Mfete? But I hope with this sentence you will go and reflect in a dark corner that you will be sent to from here.
You were selfish as you did not take into consideration the interest of your child. I do not know how old the child is, because the age is not given here. But looking at your age, there is a possibility that this child is still young. As you are going to spend time in prison, it means that this child will grow up with an absent father in her life.
So, having said that, I am going to impose this sentence in terms of the agreement that you and your counsel reached with the state. I am not going to consider concurrent running of sentences. I am however satisfied that the sentence that I am going to impose now in terms of the agreement you reached with the state is a just sentence.
Mr Mfete, you are sentenced as follows.
Count 1, you are sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, of which 5 years is suspended for a period of 5 years, on condition that you do not commit any offence during the period of suspension.
ORDER
It is ordered that the accused will serve an effective sentence of 30 years' imprisonment.
It is further ordered that the accused be declared unfit to possess a firearm, in terms of section 103 of Act 60 of 2000, it is the Firearms Control Act.
That will be your sentence, sir.
MOSOPA J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
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.