grade five. He did not go further because he opted to stay with his parents on the farm. He lived on the farm with both of his parents where life has not been easy. They had to struggle for survival. He is currently serving a sentence after he was convicted and sentenced at the age of 17 years during 2007. Accused one also testified that he feels bad about the death of the deceased, as it was not his intention to cause it. Accused one further testified that after the killing of the deceased he did not meet any of the deceased’s family to ask for forgiveness though he had tried by all means to do so. [3] Accused one confirmed that he has had no responsibility towards anyone and was also not employed at any before his conviction. Accused one retaliated his claim that he met the deceased during 2008 and they had been together for three years within which the deceased had mistreated him by insulting him. He placed the blame on the Correctional Facility personnel whom he accused of failing to act even after he had reported the maltreatment by the deceased which could have made them to act, whereby the incident could have been prevented. [4] Accused one further claimed that the weapon he used belong to the deceased and he had taken it from him in order to defend himself. He admitted to have made a mistake, with regard to him not having apologised. Accused one testified that he did not know any member of the deceased’s family. Though suspecting a certain lady to be related to the deceased, he never approached her because he feared her reaction. [5] With regard to accused he also testified that he is 47 years of age and single. He has fathered seven children of which two are under his care. The first child is a women aged 26 years while the second one is a boy aged 17. He could not recall the ages of his other five children. Accused three attended school up to grade five which was standard three at the time. He could not pursue his education because his mother died and he had to take care of his siblings. He grew up with his parents and life was not easy. Accused three testified further that he is currently serving a sentence after he was convicted during 2009 at the age of 38. He feels bad about the deceased’s death. He too did not meet the deceased’s family. He did not make any request to meet them. He claims that he is innocent and found no trial trial
reforming them. Society expects that people who have done wrong must be punished, that is, the retributive purpose in punishment is of importance. [15] In this case the accused persons were in custody and one would have expected that to have had an impact on them to rehabilitate, but went on to commit a serious crime within a Correctional facility. The viciousness of the attack that was perpetrated upon the deceased was barbaric to say the least. [16] Though accused one was indeed a youthful offender having been aged about 17 years at the time of the incident, it must also be noted that young offenders cannot always hide behind their youthfulness when they are guilty of committing serious crimes. The message should be clear to young people that they will not simply be excused by the Courts on account of youthfulness and go scot-free, but where justice will not otherwise be done, they will be held accountable and be punished accordingly for the pain and misery caused to others as a result of serious crimes committed by them. S v K . I respectfully agree with the above sentiments. [17] As I have said, this case is distinguishable from the cases of S v Kauzuu supra and S v Hange, where it was held that the period the accused spend in custody awaiting will lead to a reduction in sentence. It cannot be said herein. Furthermore, none of the accused showed genuine remorse as none of them acknowledged his wrongful conduct towards the deceased. [18] In fairness both Mr Siyomunji for accused one and three and Mr Engelbrecht for accuse two, have conceded that the accused persons cannot escape a prison sentence, but they had asked the Court to be guided by the principles enunciated in S v Sparks and Another , which reads: ‘..: and, in addition to the matter of punishment, the deterrence aspect calls for a measure of emphasis, least others think the game is worth the candle. Nevertheless, the appellants must not be visited with punishment to the point of being broken. Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crimes be fair to the state and to the accused and be blended with a measure of mercy’.