The appellant was convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and possessing an unlicensed firearm. The crimes arose from a romantic dispute. The appellant had been in a relationship with Dr Engedzani Paulina Khwanda (the complainant), which she terminated in February 1999. She then began a relationship with the deceased in March 1999. The appellant refused to accept the end of their relationship, threatened suicide, and was prescribed anti-depressants (Prozac and Valium) for depression and stress. On 13 July 1999, the appellant entered the deceased's house, pointed a firearm at the domestic worker, then shot the deceased and the complainant. He shot the complainant in the stomach, stabbed her with a screwdriver, and kicked her. He also mutilated the deceased's body with a screwdriver. When confronted by police, he pointed his firearm at Inspector Mabasa, fired a shot, then shot himself in the armpit. The deceased died from a gunshot wound to the left eye. The complainant survived but suffered serious injuries including removal of her spleen, which affected her medical career prospects.
The sentences imposed on the appellant were set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court to hear evidence from one or more of the psychiatrists who examined the appellant regarding his mental and emotional state at the time of the offences, to hear any additional evidence the State and defence wished to lead on these matters, and to pass sentence afresh on all counts on which the appellant was convicted.
A trial court has a duty, in appropriate cases, to call evidence on sentence of its own motion under section 274(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 where such evidence is necessary to inform itself as to the proper sentence to be passed and to ensure justice is done. When considering whether to impose a prescribed minimum sentence under section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, a court must actively investigate and properly consider whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist that would justify departure from the prescribed sentence. Where there are indications that an accused's mental or emotional state may constitute substantial and compelling circumstances, but this has not been fully canvassed in evidence, the court must call such evidence rather than proceed to sentence without it. A judge in a criminal trial is an administrator of justice who must see that justice is done, not merely an umpire observing the rules of procedure.
Farlam JA observed that even if emotional factors and mental health issues were present that may have caused the appellant to behave as he did, the crimes he committed were very serious and called for severe sentences. However, this does not mean the prescribed sentence for premeditated murder should necessarily be imposed if substantial and compelling circumstances are present. The Court described some of the appellant's behavior as 'bizarre', suggesting this reinforced the need for psychiatric evidence. The Court also noted that had the case been dealt with before the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 came into operation, the sentence would likely have been different, implicitly acknowledging the significant impact of prescribed minimum sentence legislation on judicial sentencing discretion.
This case is significant in South African criminal procedure and sentencing law for establishing the duty of a trial judge to actively call evidence on sentence where necessary to ensure justice is done, particularly in cases involving prescribed minimum sentences where substantial and compelling circumstances may exist. It reinforces that judges are administrators of justice, not passive umpires, and must take an active role in ensuring all relevant evidence is before the court. The case is important for the interpretation and application of section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, emphasizing that courts must properly investigate whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist before imposing prescribed minimum sentences. It also highlights the relevance of psychiatric and psychological evidence in sentencing, particularly where the accused's mental state may provide context for their criminal conduct.