The appellant, Minneldhevi Iris Naidoo, a 35-year-old widow, was charged in the Regional Court, Verulam, with attempted murder. She pleaded guilty while legally represented and submitted a detailed written statement in terms of s 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. In that statement she admitted that, after learning that her sister was being abused by her husband (the complainant), she contacted a man named Bonginkosi and contracted him for R10 000 to shoot and kill the complainant. She identified the complainant, his residence, and the time he would be home, agreed on the method of killing, and took out a life insurance policy on the complainant’s life with her sister as beneficiary, paying the first premium. Bonginkosi later shot the complainant, who survived with a shoulder injury. During sentencing proceedings, evidence emerged from a probation officer and the appellant’s sister suggesting that the appellant and her sister had decided shortly before the shooting to abandon the plan but were unable to contact Bonginkosi. Relying on this evidence, the appellant appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing that the magistrate should have invoked s 113(1) of the Act and entered a plea of not guilty.
The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.
The case clarifies the application of s 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, confirming that a court is not obliged to alter a guilty plea merely because speculative or weak indications of a defence emerge during sentencing. It also reinforces principles relating to withdrawal from a common purpose and the completion of an attempt in cases of incitement or procurement to murder.