The appellant was arrested in October 2003 at a BP Service Station near Gold Reef City, Johannesburg, and later convicted in a magistrate’s court of dealing in methcathinone (Cat), a Schedule 2 dependence‑producing drug, in contravention of s 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. The quantity involved was 3.22 kg. The arrest followed information received by police, and the drugs were found in a bag in a vehicle associated with the appellant. During the trial it emerged, mainly from the appellant’s own evidence, that police informers and agents (including one Yunus and others later revealed to be informers) had engaged with the appellant over time and had ultimately facilitated a controlled transaction. The appellant admitted he willingly participated in the transaction to make money. He contended that he had been entrapped, that the police had acted dishonestly in their statements, and that evidence of the trap was inadmissible under s 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court, leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was upheld, and the sentence was reduced to five years’ imprisonment, two years of which were wholly suspended for five years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of any offence under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992.
The case is significant for its interpretation and application of s 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act, clarifying that entrapment is not a defence in South African law but an evidentiary issue concerning admissibility. It confirms that evidence will generally be admissible where police conduct merely provides an opportunity to commit an offence, particularly where the accused is a willing participant. The judgment also illustrates the SCA’s willingness to interfere with disproportionate sentences in drug‑dealing cases involving police traps.