Gamede v The State

On 22 June 2004, police discovered large quantities of mandrax powder and manufacturing equipment at Spitskop Farm near Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal. On 24 June 2004, further equipment was found at nearby Mange Farm. The second appellant was arrested at Spitskop Farm on 22 June 2004 driving a vehicle containing groceries and a bag of Anthranilic Acid (used in mandrax manufacture). The first appellant was arrested on 24 June 2004 after fleeing from police in a vehicle containing buckets and plastic bags of powder substance. She claimed she was asked to discard the materials and that it was cattle feed. Both farms were being used for large-scale mandrax manufacturing operations. The value of the 556 kilograms of methaquolone was approximately R50 million. Both appellants were convicted in the regional court at Durban of contravening section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment each.

• Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that mandrax was being manufactured at the premises
• Whether the State proved that the appellants were dealing in the substance as envisaged by the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act
• Whether the convictions were justified by the evidence
• Whether the 20-year sentences imposed on both appellants were appropriate

1. In each case the appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. In each case the appeal against sentence is upheld. 2.1 The sentence of the first appellant is set aside and substituted with a sentence of 5 years imprisonment. 2.2 The sentence of the second appellant is set aside and substituted with a sentence of 15 years imprisonment.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, the statutory definition of 'dealing' in drugs is very wide and encompasses almost any activity performed in connection with the drug, including acts in connection with its manufacture. (2) A person who assists in removing incriminating evidence from a large-scale drug manufacturing operation, knowing the nature of the operation, is guilty of dealing in drugs even if not directly involved in manufacture. (3) A person who knowingly transports materials used in drug manufacture to a manufacturing site performs an act in connection with the manufacture and is guilty of dealing. (4) The scale of a drug manufacturing operation can support an inference that a participant must have known of its illegal nature. (5) When sentencing for drug offences subject to minimum sentences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, courts should consider the offender's specific role - a subsidiary role without aggravating circumstances does not justify exceeding the statutory minimum.

The court noted that it was not necessary to deal with the challenge to the veracity of the forensic analysis of the substance found on the farms, as the nature of the material and equipment alone made it clear that both farms were being used for the manufacture of mandrax on a substantial scale. The court also observed that the second appellant's decision to lead police on a 'wild goose chase' to seek the main perpetrator did not detract from his culpability. In sentencing considerations, the court acknowledged the mitigating character of the second appellant's clean record, having reached the age of 40 years without blemish.

This case clarifies the wide scope of the statutory definition of 'dealing' in drugs under section 1 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, which includes 'performing any act in connection with the transhipment, importation, cultivation, collection, manufacture, supply, prescription, administration, sale, transmission or exportation of the drug'. The case demonstrates that even subsidiary roles in large-scale drug manufacturing operations, such as disposing of evidence or transporting manufacturing materials, constitute statutory dealing. It also provides guidance on appropriate sentencing in drug trafficking cases, particularly concerning the application of minimum sentences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and when deviations from those minimums are justified based on the offender's specific role and circumstances.