THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case No: 433/13

Reportable
In the matter between:

MARTIN GROBLER

APPELLANT
and
THE STATE

RESPONDENT
Neutral citation:
Grobler v The State (433/13) [2014] ZASCA 147 (26 September
2014)
Coram:

PONNAN, SALDULKER JJA and DAMBUZA AJA

Heard:
12 September 2014
Delivered

26 September 2014
Summary:
Sentence – fraud – accused convicted on 11 counts of fraud
involving approximately R1,5 million – regional court imposing three years’
correctional supervision under s 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977, plus five years’ imprisonment wholly suspended on certain conditions,
including the reimbursement of the complainants – high court mero motu
increasing sentence to five years’ direct imprisonment – whether  it erred in
doing so.

_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________________________________________
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Blignaut and Davis JJ
sitting as court of appeal):
The appeal against sentence succeeds.
The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following:
‘a The appeal is dismissed.
b The conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo is confirmed.’
_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________
SALDULKER JA (Ponnan JA and Dambuza AJA Concurring):
[1] This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Mr Martin Grobler, was
charged in the regional court, Knysna with 13 counts of fraud, alternatively theft,
committed between 31 March 1999 and 24 January 2000. On 29 July 2010 he was
convicted on 11 counts of fraud, all of which were taken together for purposes of
sentencing. On 28 March 2011, he was sentenced to three years’ correctional
supervision in terms of s 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the
Act). In addition he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for
five years on certain conditions, which included the reimbursement of the
complainants of the full extent of their financial loss being approximately R1,5 million
together with interest, calculated from the date of conviction.

[2] The appellant appealed to the Western Cape High Court solely against his
conviction. His legal representative was given notice by the high court that in the

event of the appeal against the conviction failing, he had to be prepared to address it
on the suitability of the sentence. On 9 November 2012 Blignaut J (with Davis J
concurring) confirmed the conviction and set aside the sentence of the regional court
and replaced it with one of five years’ direct imprisonment. He now appeals against
that sentence with the leave of this court.

[3] The appellant, together with Mr GCJ Naude (Naude), was a founding member
of Money Wise Holdings Ltd (Money Wise), a company that conducted a micro-
lending business. On 2 December 1998 and after Money Wise was listed on the
Johannesburg Stock Exchange, the appellant became an employee of the group and
was appointed as a marketing manager. According to the complainants, he
conducted himself as if he were a director of Money Wise. The appellant’s modus
operandi was to approach potential investors (in this instance the complainants) with
a view to them investing in Money Wise. Handsome rates of interest were offered
and indeed paid monthly to them. Over time, however, the interest payments
stopped and the complainants were unable to thereafter secure the return of their
investments. All of them subsequently learnt that they had been misled by the
appellant into believing that they were investing in Money Wise, when in fact the
appellant had misappropriated those moneys for himself.

[4] In substituting a sentence of direct imprisonment for that imposed by the trial
court, the high court stated:
‘Die probleem met die huidige vonnis is dat die gevangenisstraf opgeskort word op
voorwaarde dat appellant die bedrae wat die klaers verloor het, aan hulle moet terugbetaal.
Die vonnis bevat besonderhede van verskillende bedrae wat op verskillende datums
terugbetaal moet word. Afgesien van praktiese probleem soos allerlei geskille en
onbepaalbare uitstelle, is ’n boete van hierdie aard na my mening nie ’n genoegsame
bestraffing van appellant se misdade nie. Daar is ’n brief as bewysstuk ingehanding van ’n
persoon wat skynbaar bereid was om die betrokke bedrae namens appellant te betaal.
Indien dit sou gebeur en appellant daarna vir ’n tweede keer gesekwesreer word, wat nie
onwaarskynlik is nie, sal hy stokvry wegstap.’

[5] It is trite that the imposition of sentence is pre–eminently a matter for the
discretion of the trial court and a court on appeal will not interfere with the exercise of
such discretion unless it can be said that the sentencing court did not exercise its
discretion judicially by reason of an irregularity or material misdirection or that the
sentence imposed is so shockingly inappropriate that it is clear that the trial court
acted unreasonably. (See S v Pieters 1987 (3) SA 717 (A) at 727F-H: S v Malgas
2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) para 12; Director of Public Prosecutions v Mngoma 2010
(1) SACR 427 (SCA) para 11; and S v Le Roux & others 2010 (2) SACR 11 (SCA)
para 35).

[6] In S v R 1993 (1) SACR 209 (A) Kriegler J said that by introducing
correctional supervision, the Legislature had provided a method of imposing finely
tuned sentences without resorting to imprisonment with all its known disadvantages
for both the prisoner and the broader community. At 220 G-H he observed that:
‘Ons straftoemeting het egter nou 'n heel nuwe fase betree. Korrektiewe toesig is weliswaar
'n as nog-onbeproefde vonnisopsie maar dit blyk reeds uit die magtigende wetgewing dat dit
groot potensiaal inhou. Wat veral tref, is die veelsoortigheid daarvan. By nadere ondersoek
word dit duidelik dat die benaming ‘'korrektiewe toesig’' nie soseer 'n vonnis beskryf nie
maar 'n versamelnaam is vir 'n wye verskeidenheid maatreëls waarvan die enkele
gemeenskaplike kenmerk is dat hulle buite die gevangenis toegepas word.
’
[7] In S v Samuels 2011(1) SACR 9 (SCA) para 9-10, Ponnan JA pointed out
that:
‘An enlightened and just penal policy requires consideration of a broad range of sentencing
options from which an appropriate option can be selected that best fits the unique
circumstances of the case before the court. It is trite that the determination of an appropriate
sentence requires that proper regard be had to the well-known triad of the crime, the
offender and the interests of society. After all, any sentence must be individualised and each
matter must be dealt with on its own peculiar facts. It must also in fitting cases be tempered
with mercy. Circumstances vary and punishment must ultimately fit the true seriousness of

the crime. The interests of society are never well served by too harsh or too lenient a
sentence. A balance has to be struck.
It was urged upon us that correctional supervision would have been an appropriate sentence
for the appellant. Sentencing courts must differentiate between those offenders who ought to
be removed from society and those who, although deserving of punishment, should not be
removed. With appropriate conditions, correctional supervision can be made a suitably
severe punishment, even for persons convicted of serious offences . . .’

[8] There is no indication in the judgment of the high court why it saw fit to
interfere with the sentence imposed by the regional court. In arriving at what it
thought was an appropriate sentence, the regional court was aided by a
comprehensive correctional supervision report with a strict correctional supervision
regime entailing, inter alia, community service, monitoring by the commissioner,
including rehabilitative programmes and that the appellant remain under house
arrest (outside of his working hours) for three years.

[9] The trial court took into account the personal circumstances of the appellant
as set out in the correctional supervision report, namely that he was: (a) a first
offender; (b) an educated man – he had a tertiary qualification; and (c) married with
three dependant children and had strong family ties. It also took into account that
there was a long delay between the time the original charges were laid against the
appellant in the year 2000 and his eventual conviction in 2010 and the emotional and
mental suffering that the appellant had to endure during this period. The seriousness
and the reprehensibility of the appellant’s conduct in betraying the trust of the
complainants was also taken into account by the regional court as an aggravating
factor.

[10] Furthermore, the regional court gave serious consideration to whether a
custodial or non-custodial sentence would be appropriate, and decided that a
custodial sentence did not commend itself in the circumstances of this case. It
weighed heavily with the regional court that each of the complainants would be

reimbursed for their loss, which would have only been feasible if the appellant was
economically productive.

[11] In contrast, the high court in a short judgment stated that it had taken into
account the relevant facts and considerations, including the unfortunate long delay in
the finalisation of the case against the appellant and considered that a sentence of
five years’ imprisonment was appropriate. It is difficult to understand how the high
court came to the conclusion that direct imprisonment was suitable in the light of the
carefully reasoned judgment of the trial court. In justifying the increased sentence,
Blignaut J reasoned that the problem with the regional court’s sentence was that
imprisonment was suspended on condition that the appellant reimburse the
complainants for their losses. In his view, reimbursement was the equivalent of a
fine, the practical aspects of which could lead to a variety of disputes and
incalculable delays and that the appellant would in all probability be sequestrated for
a second time and that, because another person was making the payments on the
appellant’s behalf, he would then go ‘scot-free’. This reasoning is flawed. The
sentence of the regional court places the appellant under house arrest for three
years combined with five years’ imprisonment wholly suspended, which is subject to
certain conditions, including the onerous burden of paying back large sums of money
totalling almost R1,5 million to the complainants. Should the appellant fail to make
any payment, he would be in breach of the conditions imposed and the sentence of
five years’ direct imprisonment would then come into operation. Furthermore, there
was no evidence before the high court to suggest that he would not have to repay his
benefactor. The conclusion that the appellant will in fact go ‘scot-free’ is thus devoid
of any factual foundation.

[12] Pragmatically, it would be unreasonable to incarcerate the appellant who has
been an economically active member of society for the past 13 years since he was
charged, and who has not committed any other offences during this period. It is also
a relevant consideration that after that lengthy passage of time the high court sought
to impose a custodial sentence. As pointed out by Kriegler J in S v R, the
introduction of correctional supervision ushered in a new phase in our criminal justice

system, clearly distinguishing between those offenders who ought to be removed
from society by being incarcerated and those who, even though deserving of
punishment, should not be removed. The appellant’s circumstances provide a
compelling case for a non-custodial sentence. The regional court clearly did not
misdirect itself when it imposed what is described by Kriegler J in S v R as a ‘finely–
tuned sentence’ without resorting to imprisonment.

[13] Counsel for the State was constrained to concede that in the circumstances of
this case interference by the high court was not warranted. And further that as the
State had not itself seen fit to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial court,
it had difficulty defending the approach of the high court.

[14] In the result the appeal must succeed. The following order is made:
The appeal against sentence succeeds.
The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following:
‘a The appeal is dismissed.
b The conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo is confirmed.’

____________
H SALDULKER
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:
Appellant(s):
Mr F. Van Zyl SC
Instructed by:
Bornman & Associates, Bellville
Symington & De Kock, Bloemfontein

Respondent(s)
Ms Du Toit - Smit

Instructed by:

Director of Public Prosecutions

Cape Town