S v Pain (CA&R 67/06) [2006] ZANCHC 33 (19 June 2006)

S v Pain (CA&R 67/06) [2006] ZANCHC 33 (19 June 2006)

The appellant's plea and factual admissions established possession of cocaine but did not meet the statutory definition of dealing, as she acted as a runner without profit and did not supply drugs for commercial gain. Both parties agreed that the conviction for dealing was unsustainable and should be replaced with possession. The sentence of four years imprisonment, half suspended, was disproportionate for possession, given the appellant's personal circumstances, remorse, and cooperation with authorities. The appropriate sentence is a fine of R6,000 or one year imprisonment in default, with an additional one year imprisonment suspended for five years on condition of no further...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 33
Parties
Appellant: Pamela Alona Pain; Respondent: State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Case Number
CA&R 67/06
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction for dealing set aside and replaced with possession; sentence reduced to a fine with suspended imprisonment.
Judges
KGOMO, MOKGOHLOA
Legal Topics
Drug Possession, Drug Dealing, Sentence Reduction, Magistrates Court Appeal
Criminal Law Drug Possession Drug Dealing Sentence Reduction Magistrates Court Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pamela Alona Pain

Appellant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted dealing in a dangerous dependence producing substance or mere possession.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for dealing should be set aside and replaced with possession.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for the offence of possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's plea and factual admissions established possession of cocaine but did not meet the statutory definition of dealing, as she acted as a runner without profit and did not supply drugs for commercial gain. Both parties agreed that the conviction for dealing was unsustainable and should be replaced with possession. The sentence of four years imprisonment, half suspended, was disproportionate for possession, given the appellant's personal circumstances, remorse, and cooperation with authorities. The appropriate sentence is a fine of R6,000 or one year imprisonment in default, with an additional one year imprisonment suspended for five years on condition of no further...

Court Disposition

Conviction for dealing set aside and replaced with possession; sentence reduced to a fine with suspended imprisonment.

Orders

  • The conviction for dealing in a dangerous dependence producing substance in terms of section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 is set aside and replaced with guilty of possession of a dangerous dependence producing substance in terms of section 4(b) of Act 140 of 1992.
  • The sentence of four years imprisonment, half suspended, is set aside and replaced with a fine of R6,000 or one year imprisonment in default of payment.