Strydom v The State

The appellant, Cornelia Strydom, was employed by the City of Johannesburg as a Specialist Pension Administrator. Between June 2007 and September 2009 she colluded with a co-accused, Marlene Horn, to defraud the municipality by processing and paying false invoices for specialised home care that was never rendered. The proceeds were shared between them, and the appellant benefitted in the amount of R375 816.92. She pleaded guilty to 36 counts of fraud, admitted the elements of the offences, and was convicted. She had a prior fraud conviction from 1998. The Regional Court sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment and, in terms of s 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, ordered that she serve a non-parole period of three years. The magistrate imposed the non-parole order without inviting submissions from the parties and without providing reasons. Her applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused by the magistrate and on petition to the Gauteng Local Division, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order refusing the appellant leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting her special leave to appeal to the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, against the sentence imposed by the Regional Court. Directions were given to expedite the appeal.

This case reinforces the strict procedural and substantive safeguards governing the imposition of non-parole periods under s 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act. It confirms that such orders may only be made in exceptional circumstances, must be supported by reasons, and require that the parties be afforded an opportunity to make submissions. The judgment strengthens fair-trial protections in sentencing and limits judicial intrusion into the parole domain.