ANDILE LUNGISA APPELLANT And

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable Case No: 696/2019 In the matter between:

ANDILE LUNGISA APPELLANT and

THE STATE RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Lungisa v The State (Case no 696/2019) [2020] ZASCA 99 (9 September 2020) Coram: MAYA P and DAMBUZA and NICHOLLS JJA and WEINER and MABINDLA-BOQWANA AJJA Heard: Matter disposed without oral hearing in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

Delivered: This judgment was handed Ukuwiswa: Esi sigwebo sawiswa down electronically by circulation to ngeintanethi, ngokusiwa kubathetheleli the parties’ legal representatives by bamacala onke ngeimeyili, email, publication on the Supreme nangokupapashwa kwisiza sonxi- Court of Appeal website and release to belelwano seNkundla yeziBheno SAFLII. The date and time for hand- ePhakamileyo nangokufakwa ku- down is deemed to be 15h00 on SAFLII . Umhla nexesha lokuwiswa 9 September 2020. kwaso uthathwa njengokuba ngulo:

ngu-15h00 ngomhla we-9 kweyo Msintsi ka 2020.

Summary: Sentence – appeal against Isishwankathelo: Isohlwayo – isibheno imposition of effective sentence of two esichasa ukunikwa kwesohlwayo years’ imprisonment for assault with sokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka intent to cause grievous bodily harm to emibini epheleleyo ngenxa yokuhlasela fellow municipal councillor – whether ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi trial court exercised discretion emzimbeni ugxa wakhe ongomnye improperly – whether sentence is wooceba bakwamasipala – ingaba disproportionate – appeal dismissed. inkundla eyavavanya ityala yasebenzisa

ilungelo layo lokwenza isigqibo ngokungafanelekanga na – ingaba isohlwayo sigqithisile na – isibheno sachithwa.

ORDER UMYALELO

On appeal from: Eastern Cape Kwisibheno esivela: KwiSahlulo Division of the High Court, SeNkundla ePhakamileyo SaseMpuma Grahamstown (Roberson J and Renqe Koloni, eGrahamstown (NguRoberson J AJ (concurring) sitting as a court of noRenqe AJ (bevumelana) behleli appeal): njengenkundla yesibheno):

1. Condonation for the late filing of the 1. Isicelo sombheni sokuxolelwa appellant’s notice of appeal is kokungeniswa kade kwesaziso granted. sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa. 2. Condonation for the late filing of the 2. Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa respondent’s heads of argument is kokungeniswa kade kwezihloko granted. zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa. 3. The appeal is dismissed. 3. Isibheno siyachithwa.

JUDGMENT ISIGWEBO

Mabindla-Boqwana AJA (Maya P NguMabindla-Boqwana AJA and Dambuza and Nicholls JJA and (uMaya P noDambuza noNicholls Weiner AJA concurring): JJA noWeiner AJA bevumelana):

[1] The appellant, Mr Andile Lungisa, [1] Umbheni, uMnu. Andile Lungisa, appeared before the Port Elizabeth wayevele phambi kweNkundla Magistrates’ Court (Mr Cannon) on a yeeMantyi yaseBhayi (kuMnu. Cannon) charge of assault with intent to cause emangangalelwe ngokuhlasela grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi guilty to the charge and was emzimbeni. Waliphika ityala, waza subsequently convicted of that charge emva koko wafunyanwa enalo elotyala on 17 April 2018. On 9 May 2018 he ngowe-17 kuTshaz’iimpuzi ka-2018. was sentenced to three years’ Ngowe-9 kuCanzibe ka-2018 wanikwa imprisonment, of which one year was isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni suspended for a period of five years on iminyaka emithathu, ekwathi unyaka condition that he was not convicted of omnye kuloo minyaka waxhonywa assault with intent to cause grievous ithuba eliyiminyaka emihlanu, phantsi bodily harm or assault, committed komqathango wokuba engasayi during the period of suspension. kufunyanwa kwakhona enetyala

lokuhlasela ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni okanye elokuhlasela, ekwenza ngelixesha lokuxhonywa kwawo. 5

[2] With the leave of the Eastern Cape [2] Wathi ke ngemvume yeSahlulo Division of the High Court, seNkundla ePhakamileyo yaseMpuma Grahamstown (the high court), he Koloni, eGrahamstown (inkundla appealed against both his conviction ephakamileyo), wabhena and sentence. His appeal was dismissed ngakwisigwebo esi sokuba netyala, on 2 April 2019 and the high court only kwanesohlwayo eso wayesinikiwe. adjusted the condition attached to the Isibheno sakhe sachithwa ngowesi-2 suspended portion of his sentence.1 He kuTshaz’iimpuzi ka-2019 yaza thereafter lodged a petition with this inkundla yalungelelanisa nje Court and was granted special leave to lamqathango uhamba nalaandawo appeal against his sentence only, on ixhonyiweyo yesohlwayo sakhe. Uye 27 May 2019. emva koko wafaka isicelo sokubhena

kuleNkundla, waza wanikwa imvume ekhethekileyo yokuba abhene ngakwisohlwayo kuphela, ngowama-27 kuCanzibe ka-2019.

[3] The parties agreed to have the [3] Umbheni kunye nombuso appeal determined without the hearing bavumelana ukuba isibheno eso of oral argument in terms of s 19(a) of siqwalaselwe kungakhange kuviwe the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the zingxoxo mpikiswano ngqo Superior Courts Act). An issue to be ngokomlomo, oko kusenziwa disposed of before consideration of the ngokwemimiselo yesolotya elingu

1 By adding the words ‘and for which the accused is sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment without the option of the fine.’

Ngokufakela la mazwi: ‘asinikelwa yona umtyholwa lo isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni kungaxhonywa ndawo yaso kungekho nethuba lokuhlawula umdliwo.’ 6 merits of the appeal relates to two s19(a) woMthetho weeNkundla condonation applications brought by eziNgentla we-10 ka-2013 (uMthetho both parties, one pertaining to the late weeNkundla eziNgentla). Umba filing of the notice of appeal by the ekufuneka kuqalwe ngawo phambi appellant and the other relating to the kokunika ingqalelo kwinkqu yesibheno late filing of the heads of argument by esi zizicelo ezibini zoxolelo the respondent. Both applications were ezingeniswe ngawo omabini amaqela, unopposed and, having perused the omnye uphathelele nokungeniswa kade relevant affidavits, I am satisfied that kwesaziso sokubhena ngumbheni, good cause has been shown for omnye ingulowo wokungeniswa kade condonation to be granted. kwezihloko zengxoxo ngumphenduli.

Zozibini ezi zicelo zange kubekho cala liziphikisayo; ke, ndakuba ndiwagocagocile amaxwebhu obungqina, ndanelisekile kukuba zikhona izizathu ezivakalayo zokuba eziziphene zixolelwe.

[4] The appellant’s conviction ema- [4] Ukufunyaniswa enetyala kombheni nates from events which took place in lo kususela kwizehlo ezenzeka the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality kwigumbi leBhunga lika-Masipala Council (the Council) chamber at a waseNelson Mandela Bay (iBhunga) meeting held on 27 October 2016. At kwiintlanganiso eyayibanjwe ngomhla that meeting the appellant, who is a wama-27 kweyeDwarha ngo-2016. member of the African National Kuloo ntlanganiso umbheni lo, olilungu Congress (ANC) and was, at the time of lombutho i-African National Congress 7 the incident, its leader in the Council, (i-ANC) nowaye, ngelo xesha grievously assaulted one Mr Ryno kusenzeka lento, eyinkokheli yawo lo Kayser (the complainant), a Democratic mbutho phaya kwelaaBhunga, Alliance (DA) councillor. The incident, wahlasela ngokuyingozi uMnu. Ryno which was recorded by Mr Ronaldo Kayser (ummangali), uceba Gouws, also a DA councillor, on his cell weDemocratic Alliance (i-DA). Esi phone, occurred during a debate sehlo, esathi sashicelelwa nguMnu. involving the conduct of another ANC Ronaldo Gouws, naye enguceba we- Councillor, Mr Sabani, at a previous DA, kumnxeba wakhe oyiselula, sehla meeting. Due to the fact that a matter ngexesha lengxoxo-mpikiswano eyayi- concerning him was to be discussed, the malunga nokuziphatha komnye uceba Speaker, Mr Jonathan Lawack had we-ANC, uMnu. Sabani, requested Mr Sabani to leave the kwintlanganiso eyayingaphambili. Chamber. Mr Sabani refused to do so Ngenxa yokuba kwakuza kuxoxwa causing the Speaker to call for security ngomba omalunga naye, uSomlomo, personnel to remove him. Security uMnu. Jonathan Lawack, wayemcelile members were prevented from uMnu. Sabani ukuba aphume kulo approaching Mr Sabani by certain iGumbi elo. UMnu. Sabani wala members of the Council, including the ukwenjenjalo, nto leyo eyabangela appellant. ukuba uSomlomo abize abezokhuselo

ukuza kumkhupha. Amalungu ezokhuselo athintelwa ukuba asondele kuMnu. Sabani ngamalungu athile eBhunga elo, ekwakukho kuwo nombheni lo.

[5] A motion which caused [5] Kwabakho ke isiphakamiso consternation among ANC councillors esabangela ukunxunguphala phakathi was adopted by the Council in respect kooceba be-ANC esathi samkelwa of Mr Sabani. The meeting then liBhunga ngokubhekise kuMnu. Sabani. descended into chaos. At this point, the Intlanganiso ke ngoku yasuka yaba appellant and another ANC councillor, ngumbhodamo. Kwesi sithuba, Mr Feni, approached the Speaker’s umbheni lo kunye nomnye uceba we- precinct. Mr Feni grabbed the Speaker ANC, uMnu. Feni, baya ngakwiqonga by the arm and the complainant moved likaSomlomo. UMnu. Feni wanqakula towards the Speaker’s table to uSomlomo ngengalo waza ummangali intervene. It is at this stage that the wasondela ngasetafileni kaSomlomo appellant hit the complainant on his ukuya kungenelela. Kwaba kwesi head with a glass jug filled with water. sithuba ke apho umbheni lo wabetha The complainant fell to the ground and ummangali entloko ngejagi yegilasi bled profusely. He became unconscious ezele amanzi. Ummangali wawa and was taken to hospital, where he phantsi, wopha ngamandla. Wakhe received medical treatment. He wemkelwa ziingqondo waza wasiwa sustained a three centimetre long, one esibhedlele, apho wafumana unyango centimetre deep laceration with an loogqirha. Waba nenxeba elinzulu underlying haematoma on the left elinokudlakazeka, elibude buzii- temple, a small flap laceration on the sentimitha ezintathu, nobunzulu left ear, multiple linear abrasions (about obuyisentimitha enye, likwanalo negazi five to ten centimetres long) on the left elenze ihlwili apha ngaphantsi kwalo, side of the neck from which pieces of kwintlafuno yasekhohlo, kwabakho glass had to be surgically removed, and nelinye inxeba lokukrazuka endlebeni a ‘deep’ four centimetre long abrasion yasekhohlo, imigruzuko emininzi ebude 9

on the upper chest. The laceration on his (bumalunga neesentimitha ezintlanu left temple was sutured. ukuya kutsho kwezilishumi) kwicala

langasekhohlo lentamo apho kwakhutshwa iingceba zegilasi ngokusikwa athungwe; kwabakho nenxeba ‘elinzulu’ eliziisentimitha ezine kumantla esifuba. Laa mgruzuko ukwintlafuno yasekhohlo wathungwa.

[6] In convicting the appellant, the trial [6] Ekumfumaneni enetyala umbheni, court found the appellant to have been inkundla eyayivavanya elityala an extremely poor witness who tailored yamfumanisa umbheni elingqina his version as the trial progressed. The elibuthathaka gqitha elamane ukulakha high court echoed the findings of the elalo icala lebali ngokuya kuqhubeka trial court and confirmed the appellant’s ukuthethwa kwetyala. Inkundla conviction in its well-reasoned ephakamileyo yazingqina iziphumo judgment. As to sentence, the trial court zenkundla ebivavanya elityala, expressed that a non-custodial sentence yakuqinisekisa ukufunyanwa kombheni would be inappropriate as it ‘would enetyala, kwisigwebo sayo over-emphasise the personal circum- esasizathuzelwe kakuhle. Malunga stances of the accused to the detriment nesohlwayo, inkundla eyayivavanya of the seriousness and prevalence of the ityala yavakalisa ukuba isohlwayo offence, as well as the community sangaphandle kwejele sasiya kuba interest and the interest of the sesingafanelekanga njengoko ‘sasiya complainant.’ It observed that despite kusuke sigxininise gqitha ekuboneleleni the appellant being a first offender, he iimeko zobuqu zalo ungumtyholwa, ize 10 was convicted of a serious crime. The loonto ikhokelele kumngcipheko high court declined to interfere with the wokuba bungasiwa so ububi bolu trial court’s sentencing discretion lwaphulo-mthetho nokuxhaphaka holding that, whilst the sentence was kwalo, kanti nokulungelwa kwabantu robust, in its view, the difference ekuhlaleni, nokulungelwa between what it would have imposed kommangali.’ Inkundla leyo yatsho and the actual sentence imposed by the nokuthi, nakuba umbheni lo trial court was not so significant as to wayesisaphuli-mthetho esiqalayo, eli justify its interference. tyala wayefunyenwe enalo lityala elibi,

elinobuzaza. Inkundla ephakamileyo ke yala ukuphazamisana nendlela eye yabona ngayo inkundla eyayivavanya elityala isithi, nangona isohlwayo eso siqatha, ngokwembono yayo, umahluko phakathi kwesohlwayo ebiyakusiwisa yona kunye nesosohlwayo siwisiweyo yinkundla eyavavanya ityala, wawungemkhulu ngokwaneleyo ukuba kuthetheleleke ukusiphazamisa esaa sigqibo salaankundla yokuqala.

[7] The essence of the appeal is that the [7] Oyena ndoqo wesi sibheno yile sentence imposed by the trial court is ndawo ithi isohlwayo esanikwa yin- shockingly inappropriate in that the trial kundla eyavavanya ityala court did not properly balance the sinokungafaneleki ngendlela personal circumstances of the appellant eyothusayo, kuba loo nkundla zange 11 with the seriousness of the offence and yenze mlinganiso ufanelekileyo interests of society, leading to a phakathi kweemeko zobuqu zombheni misdirection which merits interference nobubi, nobuzaza bolwaphulo-mthetho by this Court. It was particularly olo kwanokulungelwa koluntu, nto leyo contended that the trial court ikhokelele ekubeni kwenzeke downplayed the achievements of the ulahlekiso-mthethweni olukufaneleyo appellant and the fact that he has a wife ukuphazanyiswa yileNkundla. Eyona and children to look after. Further, it did nto kwaxhwithwana ngayo not consider that the event happened in ngokukodwa kukuba inkundla ‘a moment of madness’ and was ‘a spur eyavavanya ityala yazithatha kancinci of the moment’ attack, albeit serious izenzo zempumelelo zombheni and brutal. It was submitted that the kwanokuba unomfazi nabantwana appellant was sacrificed at the altar of abaxhomekeke kuye. Ngaphezulu, deterrence and that a higher standard ayizange iyithathele ngqalelo into was applied in assessing his blame- yokuba esisehlo senzeka ‘ngethutyana worthiness because of his high political lokuba buphambana’ saye sasiluhlaselo profile than would have been applied to olwasuka lwazigqabhukela ngaloo an ordinary person. Counsel for the mzuzu, nakuba eneneni luyinto appellant suggested that an appropriate enobuzaza kwakunye noburhalarhume. sentence in these circumstances would Kwathiwa ke umbheni unqunqelwe be correctional supervision in terms of egoqweni ekuthiwa luthintelo-bubi, s 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure kwaza kwasetyenziswa umgangatho Act 51 of 1977 (the Criminal Procedure ongqwabalala kakhulu kunokuba Act)2 or, if this court finds that a kufuneka ekujongeni ukuba nobutyala

2 Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for correctional supervision as one of the forms of punishment which a sentencing court can impose on a convicted person. Correctional supervision is defined in s 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act as ‘a community based sentence to which a person is subject in accordance with Chapter V and VI of the Correctional Service Act, 1998, and the regulations made under that Act . . .’ The term is defined in 12

custodial sentence is necessary, a kwakhe, loo nto isenziwa liwonga lakhe sentence in terms of s 276(1)(i) of that eliphezulu ngokwepolitiki, kunokuba Act.3 bekuya kwenziwa kumntu njee.

Umthetheleli wombheni waphakamisa ukuba isohlwayo esifanelekileyo kwezi meko sesokugwetyelwa ngaphantsi kweliso labezoBulungisa ngokwemimiselo yecandelo lama- 276(1)(h) loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho wama-51 ka- 1977 okanye, ukuba le nkundla ifumanisa ukuba isohlwayo esinentolongo siyafuneka, sisohlwayo ngokwemimiselo yecandelo lama- 276(1)(i) lawo looMthetho.

the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 as ‘a form of community corrections contemplated in Chapter VI.’ This, amongst other objectives, affords sentenced offenders an opportunity to serve their sentences in a non-custodial manner.

ICandelo lama-276(1)(h) loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho libonelela ukugadwa kwabo banobutyala benziswe imisebenzi ethile njengenye yeendlela zesohlwayo esisenokumiselwa yinkundla eyenza loonto. Isohlwayo sokugadwa ngabeSebe lezoBulungisa sichazwe kwicandelo 1 loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho ngokuba sisohlwayo sokusebenza phakathi koluntu ngokwezahluko zesi-V nesi-VI zoMthetho weeNkonzo zezoBulungisa, 1998, kunye nemigaqo eyenziwe phantsi koMthetho lowo . . .’ Eligama lichazwe kuMthetho weeNkonzo zezoBulungisa we-111 ka-1998 kwathiwa, ‘uhlobo oluthile lwezilungiso ezenzelwa phakathi koluntu oluqingqwe kwiSahluko sesi-VI.’ Le, phakathi kwezinye iinjongo-kwenza, inika aboni abanikwe isohlwayo ithuba lokuphumeza izohlwayo zabo ngendlela ebagcina bengayi entolongweni.

3 Section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for imprisonment from which a convicted person may be placed under correctional supervision in the discretion of the Commissioner or a parole board.

ICandelo lama-276(1) (i) loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho libonelela ngendlela yokuvalelwa anokuthi xa esuka kuyo umntu obefunyenwe enetyala abekwe phantsi kokugadwa ngabeSebe ngabezoBulungisa ngokubona kukaKhomishinari okanye ibhodi yezoxolelo.

[8] It is a well-established sentencing [8] Ngumgqaliselo ekudala wasekwayo principle that the determination of ukuba ukuqingqwa kwesohlwayo sentence is principally a matter for the ngumbandela oselungelweni trial court’s discretion.4 Grounds upon lwenkundla eyavavanya ityala. Izizathu which a court of appeal may interfere enokuthi inkundla yezibheno with a sentence imposed by a trial court iphazamisane ngazo nesohlwayo are confined. The approach to be esinikwe yinkundla evavanya ityala followed by the appellate court when zimbalwa. Inkqubo elandelwa dealing with sentence has been stated in yinkundla yezibheno xa iphethe many judgments of this Court. It was isohlwayo ixeliwe kwizigwebo ezininzi aptly summarised in S v Hewitt5 as zaleNkundla. Yashwankathelwa follows: ngokuchanekileyo ku- S v Hewitt ngolu

‘An appellate court may not interfere with [the hlobo lulandelayo: discretion of the trial court] merely because it ‘Inkundla yezibheno mayingaphazamisani would have imposed a different sentence. In [nelungelo lokwenza isigqibo lenkundla other words, it is not enough to conclude that eyavavanya ityala] ngesizathwana njee sokuba its own choice of penalty would have yona ibiyakunika isohlwayo esahlukileyo. been an appropriate penalty. Something more Ngamanye amazwi, akwanele ukugqiba is required; it must conclude that its own kwelokuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo siso choice of penalty is the appropriate penalty and ebesiya kuba sisohlwayo esifanelekileyo. that the penalty chosen by the trial court is not. Kufuneka into ethe chatha; kufuneka igqibe Thus, the appellate court must be satisfied that ukuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo sesona the trial court committed a misdirection of sohlwayo sifanelekileyo kwanokuba such a nature, degree and seriousness that isohlwayo ebesikhethwe yinkundla shows that it did not exercise its sentencing ebivavanya ityala asisiso esifanelekileyo. discretion at all or exercised it improperly or Ngoko, inkundla yezibheno kufuneka izanelise

4 S v Sadler [2000] ZASCA 13; 2 All SA 121 (A) para 8. 5 S v Hewitt [2016] ZASCA 100; 2017 (1) SACR 309 (SCA) para 8. 14 unreasonably when imposing it. So, ukuba inkundla evavanye ityala yenze interference is justified only where there exists ulahlekiso-mthethweni oluluhlobo, isigaba a ‘striking’ or ‘startling’ or ‘disturbing’ nobuzaza ezibonakalisa ukuba, ayikhange disparity between the trial court’s sentence and ilisebenzise ilungelo lokwenza isigqibo konke- that which the appellate court would have konke okanye yalisebenzisa ngendlela imposed. And in such instances the trial court’s engafanelekanga okanye engacingeliyo xa discretion is regarded as having been yayinika isohlwayo eso. Ngoko ke, unreasonably exercised.’ (Footnotes uphazamiso luthetheleleka kuphela apho omitted) kukho ukwahlukana ‘okugqamileyo’ okanye ‘okothusayo’ okanye ‘okunxubisayo’ phakathi The appellate court must, therefore, kwesohlwayo senkundla eyavavanya ityala determine whether there is any basis for neso ibiyakusinika inkundla yezibheno. interference on those circumscribed Kwizehlo ezinjalo ke, ilungelo lokwenza grounds. isigqibo lenkundla evavanye ityala lithathwa njengelisetyenziswe ngendlela

engacingeliyo.’ (Amanqakwana ange- zantsi ashiyiwe.)

Inkundla yezibheno imele, ke ngoko, ukuba ijonge ukuba ingaba sikhona na isizathu sokuphazamisana nesohlwayo kuloo mida isikiweyo.

[9] In exercising its discretion, the trial [9] Ekusebenziseni ilungelo layo court must weigh both mitigating and lokwenza isigqibo inkundla evavanya aggravating factors, focused on the ityala kufuneka ivelele iimeko nature of the crime, the personal ezibunciphisayo ubutyala nezo circumstances of the offender and the zibongezayo, iqwalasele ukuba lityala interests of society. As indicated above, elinjani, neemeko zobuqu zomaphuli- 15 the contention in this case, is that mthetho lowo, kunye neemeko although the offence committed by the zokulungelwa koluntu appellant was particularly serious, the ngokubanzi. Njengoko sekuxeliwe trial court accorded insufficient weight ngasentla apha, isikhalazo sombheni to the personal circumstances and kweli tyala, kukuba nakuba ulwaphulo- exaggerated the moral blameworthiness mthetho lwakhe lwalunobuzaza of the appellant. ngendlela eyodwa, inkundla

eyavavanya ityala, iimeko zobuqu zakhe zange izinike ukubaluleka okwaneleyo, yakubaxa nokuziphatha kwakhe.

[10] The appellant was 38 years old at [10] Umbheni wayeneminyaka engama the time of sentencing. He is married -38 ubudala ngexesha enikwa with seven children. He is gainfully isohlwayo esi. Utshatile, enabantwana employed as a municipal councillor and abasixhenxe. Uqeshiwe ngokunenzuzo as an ad hoc writer. His parents and njengoceba wakwamasipala siblings are also dependent on him. His ekwangumbhali wamaxesha achievements and contribution to ngamaxesha. Abazali bakhe society as a political activist have kwanabantakwabo bakwaxhomekeke gained him the respect of many within kuye. Izenzo zakhe eziyimpumelelo his community. It was submitted on the kwanegalelo lakhe eluntwini appellant’s behalf that he was respected njengesiquququ sezepolitiki zimenze by a number of his fellow councillors, waba ngumntu ohlonitshiweyo had a good relationship with the ngabaninzi ekuhlaleni. Kwatshiwo ke, complainant prior to the assault incident egameni lombheni lo, ukuba 16 and is a first offender. These factors wayehlonitshiwe liqela loogxa bakhe must be considered together with the abangooceba, kwaye nature and seriousness of the offence wayenobudlelwane obuhle kunye and the interests of society. nommangali ngaphambi kwesehlo

sohlaselo, waye ekwangumntu oqalayo ukona. Ezizinto ke maziqwalaselwe kunye nobunjani, kwanobubi obunobuzaza bolwaphulo-mthetho olu, kwakunye nokulungelwa koluntu ngokubanzi.

[11] It was conceded on the appellant’s [11] Kwavunywa kona, egameni behalf that the offence he committed lombheni, ukuba ulwaphulo-mthetho was ‘particularly serious and even olu walwenzayo ‘lwalunobubi egregious’. The respondent highlighted obunobuzaza ngendlela eyodwa, the fact that the ‘weapon’ used in kunjalonje lutsibe ilitye likaphungela. assaulting the complainant was Umphenduli (uMbuso) wayigqamisa particularly dangerous. The complai- inyaniso yokuba ‘isikhali’ awahlasela nant was hit with such force that the ummangali ngaso sasinobungozi glass jug shattered. The assault, which ngokukodwa. Ummangali wabethwa was applied on a sensitive part of the ngamandla kangangokuba loojagi complainant’s head, his temple, could yegilasi yaqhekeka yaziingceba. have resulted in death or brain damage. Ummangali wabethwa kwindawo e It was also stressed that the complainant ethe-ethe entloko, entlafunweni, nto was told by the doctor that he was leyo yayinokumbulala okanye ‘lucky to be alive’. The medico-legal imenzakalise ubuchopho. Yagxininiswa 17 report clearly evidences the life nento yokuba ummangali waxelelwa threatening nature of the injuries ngugqirha ukuba kwabalithamsanqa sustained by the complainant. ukuba abe usaphila. Ingxelo yoogqirha neyasemthethweni inika ubungqina obucacisayo ukuba amanxeba ommangali ayenobungozi.

[12] It is not in dispute that the attack [12] Ayiphikiseki into yokuba olu has had adverse, long term effects on the hlaselo luye lwaba neziphumo ezibi, complainant. He still suffers from short- neziyakuphela emva kwexesha elide term memory loss, migraines, and kummangali. Ummangali usamane emotional distress. The trial court ukulahlekwa kukukhumbula izinto cannot be faulted for underscoring the ezisanda kwenzeka, ekhathazwa gravity of the offence. The concession kukuqaqanjelwa kakhulu yintloko as to the seriousness of the offence and nakukudandatheka ngokweemvakalelo. its impact on the complainant was well Inkundla eyavavanya ityala made by the appellant’s counsel. ayinakugxekwa ngokububeka bucace

gca ubunzulu bobubi bolu lwaphulo- mthetho. Nomthetheli wombheni lo ubuvume ngokuphandle ububi nobuzaza bolu lwaphulo-mthetho kwanomphumela walo kummangali.

[13] The trial court also correctly found [13] Inkundla eyavavanya ityala yenza that the community is entitled to expect okulungileyo ngokufumanisa ukuba a high level of responsible behaviour uluntu lunelungelo lokulindela 18 and maturity from its leaders. Municipal ukuziphatha okukwinqanaba eliphezulu councillors are entrusted with making ngenkathalo nokuvuthwa kwengqondo decisions that profoundly affect the ngokwezenzo kwiinkokeli zalo. Ooceba quality of lives and livelihoods of their bakamasipala baphathiswe umsebenzi communities. As the forum where these wokwenza izigqibo ezichaphazela decisions are made, the council chamber ngokunzulu udidi nomgangatho is intended to provide a safe platform for wobomi kunye neendlela zokuphila the exposition of differing viewpoints, zabantu kwiindawo zabo zasekuhlaleni. opinions and robust debates. Political Njengeqonga ezenzelwa kulo party representatives should be ezizigqibo, igumbi leBhunga limiselwe exemplary in their keen understanding ukuba libe yindawo ekhuselekileyo of the values of freedom of expression apho kuboniswana ngeembono and respect for rules of engagement. ezahlukeneyo, nezimvo ezingafaniyo The integrity and credibility of the kunye neengxoxo ezishushu. Abameli municipal administration in the eyes of bamaqela ezopolitiko bamele ukuba the community should not be babe yimizekelo njengabantu compromised. The community expects abayiqonda nzulu imithetho its representatives to uphold the law and yenkululeko yokuvakalisa izimvo to act in accordance with the rules. If nokuhlonipha imigaqo yothetha- councillors resort to aggression and thethwano nokuxoxa. Ukunyaniseka violence when decisions do not favour kwanokuthenjwa kolawulo loomasipala them, the interests of society are emehlweni oluntu mayingabi zizinto undermined. ezithotywa isithozela. Uluntu lulindele

ukuba abameli balo bathobele umthetho, baziphathe ngokwemigaqo. Ukuba ooceba babhenela 19

kwiingcwangu nobungxwaba-ngxwaba obunezigalo xa izigqibo zingahambisani nabo, ukulungelwa koluntu kunyhashelwa phantsi.

[14] As a leader of the ANC in the [14] Njengenkokeli ye-ANC phaya kulo Council, who was responsible for iBhunga, eyayinoxanduva instilling discipline among his fellow lokuphembelela ingqeqesho phakathi councillors and was a role model for koogxa bayo abangooceba aspiring political leaders, the appellant ekwangumzekelo ophambili had a responsibility to lead by example. kwiinkokeli zepolitiki ezisakhulayo, Instead he did the opposite and his umbheni wayenoxanduva lokukhokela fellow councillors indeed took their cue ngokuba ngumzekelo. Endaweni yoko, from him and also threw glasses at other wenza obekungalindelekanga kuye, councillors. The trial court was correct baze ke oogxa bakhe abangooceba, in its description of the councillors’ ngokwenene, bazeka mzekweni, benza conduct as that of ‘street thugs’ and in njengaye nabo, bagibisela iigilasi remarking that the appellant’s conduct kwabanye ooceba. Inkundla should not be tolerated. eyavavanya ityala yayinyanisile xa yayithelekisa ukuziphatha kwabaceba

njengokuziphatha ‘kwemigulukudu yasesitalatweni’ nangokutsho ukuba isimilo sombheni lo masinganyanyezelwa.

[15] Our country presently suffers from [15] Ilizwe lethu kunamhla nje uncontrolled and unacceptable levels of liyonakala ngamanqanaba violence. The community expects the angalawulekiyo nangamkelekanga courts to impose sentences that obungxwaba-ngxwaba obunezigalo. recognise this prevalence and show its Abantu ke balindele ukuba iinkundla repugnance and contempt for such ziwise izohlwayo ezikubonisayo conduct. Assault with intent to cause ukunanzwa koluxhaphako grievous bodily harm is one of those nokungamkeleki koku kuziphatha offences that are pervasive in our kunje. Uhlaselo ngenjongo society. While custodial sentences are yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni not the ultimate solution, they play a lusesinye sezozenzo zolwaphulo- role in sending a message not only to the mthetho ezigubungele uluntu lwethu. appellant but to would-be offenders, Noxa izohlwayo ezihamba nentolongo that regardless of one’s position in zingesiso izisombululo esigqibeleleyo, society, the law will take its course and ziyayenza indima yokuthumela appropriate sentences will be meted umyalezo ongayi kumbheni lo kuphela, out.6 This is not to sacrifice the kodwa oya nakwabanye abaseceba appellant at the altar of deterrence, but ukwaphula umthetho, othi nokuba sele to levy a sentence fitting of the ubani enewonga eluntwini, umthetho particular circumstances of the case. wona uya kuyi dlala indima yawo,

6 See S v Dalindyebo [2015] ZASCA 144; [2015] 4 All SA 689 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) para 82, where this Court held: ‘The lesson that cannot be emphasised enough is that persons in positions of authority such as the appellant are obliged to act within the limits imposed by the law, and that no one is above the law. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law.’

Ku-S v Dalindyebo [2015] ZASCA 144; [2015] 4 All SA 689 (SCA) kumhlathi 82, leNkundla yathi: ‘Isifundo esingenakugxininiswa ngokwaneleyo kukuba abantu abikwizikhundla zolawulo njengombheni lo banoxanduva lokuziphatha ngokwasemthethweni, kwaye kungekho mntu ongaphezu komthetho. UMgaqo-Siseko uqinisekisa impatho yabantu elinganayo phantsi komthetho.’ 21

I may add that the sentence imposed by ziwiswe nezohlwayo ezifanelekileyo. the trial court would, in my view, Oko ayikokunqunqela umbheni lo equally befit even an ordinary member egoqweni lothintelo-bubi kodwa of society, if due regard is had to the kwenzelwa ukuba kubekwe isohlwayo seriousness of the offence. esifanelene ncam neemeko ezizodwa

zeli tyala. Ndingongeza ndithi, ngokokwam ukubona, uhlobo lwesohlwayo esibekwe yinkundla eyavavanya ityala, besiya kufaneleka kanye nakumntu njee olilungu loluntu, xa kujongwe ncakasana ubuzaza belityala.

[16] The further submission made on [16] Okunye okuthethiweyo egameni behalf of the appellant as a mitigating lombheni njengombandela factor, that the atmosphere in the onokunciphisa ububi betyala kukuba council chamber was charged with umoya phaya kwigumbi lebhunga anger and that members of all the wawu ngowomsindo, amalungu awo political parties in the Council exhibited onke amaqela opolitiko unruly behaviour towards each other, endlongondlongo kwamanye, does not take the matter any further. The akuwuhambiseli phambili lo mcimbi. submission was that the incident Kuthiwe esisehlo senzeka ‘kwimeko happened ‘in a state of uncontrollable eyayinemisindo engalawulekiyo . . . anger . . . and in a brief yet volatile and kwaye nokuhlaselwa kommangali insane attack on the complainant, all of kwenzeka ngesiquphe esasiqhambuk’ which took a very short time.’ umlilo nesasingekho zingqondweni, 22

Interestingly, at the trial the appellant izinto ezathatha ixesha elincinane never contended that he was provoked. kakhulu xa zizonke.’ Into etsala umdla His version was that he had acted in yile yokuba ngexesha lokuxoxwa self-defence when the complainant and kwetyala umbheni lo zange akhe amise other DA party members approached ngelithi waye eqale woniwa. him in a threatening manner. Further, Wayesoloko esithi yena waye later on the night of the incident, he laid ezikhusela xa ummangali kunye with the local police a charge of namanye amalungu eqela le-DA ayesiza attempted murder against the kuye ngendlela egrogrisayo. Ngaphezu complainant. In the relevant part, his koko, ngobusuku beso sehlo, waya statement to the police read: ‘[the kumangala emapoliseni asekuhlaleni complainant] punched me with a esithi ummangali ebezama ukumbulala. clenched fist. I ducked he missed and in Kule ndawo ifaneleneyo, ingxelo yakhe the period gunshots were fired. I then kumapolisa yayifundeka ngolu hlobo: started running towards the door. I then ‘[ummangali] undibethe ngenqindi. felt fists beating me on my back . . . Ndiye ndaphepha, wandiphosa, kwaza There was also a councillor with false ngelo xesha kwabakho udubulo teeth who dove trying to take me down, ngemipu. Ndaza ndaqalisa ukubaleka I jumped over him.’ Conspicuously ndisiya ngasemnyango. Ndaza ndeva missing from this statement was the amanqindi endibetha emqolo . . . crucial fact that he struck the Kwakukwakho noceba complainant on the head with a glass owayenamazinyo okwenziwa, jug, which shattered and cut his own owazijulayo ezama ukundiwisa, fingers as well. Instead he told the ndatsiba phezu kwakhe.’ Into police that he did not know how he eyayibonakala gca ukuba ayikho kule sustained the cuts. His statement to the ngxelo yayiyile ingundoqo, eyokuba 23 police was clearly untruthful and yena wabetha ummangali lo entloko measured to manipulate the incident to ngejagi yegilasi, eyaphukayo yaza naye his advantage. The video footage firmly yamsika eminweni. Endaweni yoko, disproved his version in a number of wawaxelela amapolisa ukuba akazi respects and his attempts to salvage ukuba wawafumana njani loo manxeba what was left of his version only made okusikeka. Ingxelo yakhe emapoliseni matters worse. Both the trial court and yayibubuxoki, ibonakala ukuba the high court carefully highlighted yayilungiselelwe ukuba isijike esaa these contradictions in their judgments. sehlo isenze sibe sesilungiselela yena.

Imiboniso yeevidiyo yayiphikisa into ayithethileyo ngokungathandabuzekiyo, kwimiba eliqela; yathi nemizamo yakhe yokuhlangula loo nto ishiyekileyo yecala lakhe lebali, yayenza imeko yambi nangakumbi. Kwizigwebo zazo zombini ezi nkundla, le yavavanya ityala kunye nenkundla ephakamileyo, zaye zazigqamisa ngenkathalokazi ezi ziphikisi-nyaniso.

[17] Ultimately the appellant was [17] Ekugqibeleni yaba nguye umbheni proved to have been the aggressor on the owafunyaniswa ukuba yayinguye day of the incident. He led the other owaqala ukuhlasela ngomhla wesehlo. councillors in acting in defiance of the Nguye owakhokela abanye ooceba Council rules and the Speaker’s ukuba benze izenzo zokungayithobeli 24 instructions. His explanation for imiyalelo yeBhunga nekaSomlomo. approaching the Speaker’s precinct, Inkcazo yakhe yesizathu sokuya purportedly to speak to him, which he ngakumhlaba kaSomlomo, esithi ke admitted was impermissible, amounted wayesiya kuthetha naye, nto ke leyo to a further falsehood and was phofu awayivumayo naye ukuba contradicted by the evidence of the yayingavumelekanga, loonkcazo respondent’s witnesses that Mr Feni, his yaphinda yaba kokunye ukungathethi co-aggressor, grabbed the Speaker by nyaniso, waza waphikiseka bubungqina the arm. bamangqina omphenduli obuthi uMnu

Feni, owayengumhlaseli kunye naye, wanqakula uSomlomo ngengalo.

[18] The appellant showed no remorse [18] Umbheni lo akabonakalisanga for his actions. In his communication kuzisola ngezenzo zakhe. with the correctional supervision Kuqhakamshelwano lwakhe negosa officer, he clearly did not accept lokugada leSebe lezoBulungisa zange responsibility for his actions as it was aluvume uxanduva lwezenzo zakhe recorded in his pre-sentence report that njengoko kwakubhaliwe kwingxelo ‘[t]he accused does not admit guilt of yakhe yaphambi kokuba kunikwe the count but … respects and accepts the isohlwayo kwathiwa, ‘lo mtyholwa verdict of the court.’ His explanation for akavumi ukuba unetyala ngale nto what happened displayed no kodwa ... uyasihlonipha, esamkela ke unequivocal acceptance of wrongdoing isigqibo senkundla’. Inkcazo yakhe or penitence of the kind described in S v malunga nento eyayenzekile zange Matyityi.7 The Court in Matyityi ibonakalise ukuba uyamkela

7 S v Matyityi [2010] ZASCA 127; [2010] 2 All SA 424 (SCA); 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) para 13. 25 observed, that ‘before a court can find ngaphandle kokuthandabuza that an accused person is genuinely nangokungenamavel’etshona ukuba remorseful, it needs to have a proper wenza into engalunganga, okanye appreciation of, inter alia: what ukuzisola okulolu hlobo luchazwe ku- S motivated the accused to commit the v Matyityi. INkundla phaya ku-Matyityi deed; what has since provoked his or her yathetha yathi, ‘phambi kokuba change of heart; and whether he or she inkundla ibe nako ukufumanisa ukuba does indeed have a true appreciation of umntu obekwa isityholo uyazisola the consequences of those actions.’ The ngokunyanisekileyo, kufuneka ukuba appellant has shown none of this. On the iqondisise kakuhle ukuba, phakathi contrary, he changed his version several kwezinye izinto: yayiyintoni times, in an attempt to place blame on eyayimqhubile lo mtyholwa ukuba enze others for the altercation, perjured eso senzo wasenzayo; kwenzeke ntoni himself in court by giving false ukususela ngoko eyenze ukuba aguquke evidence, which was clearly entliziyweni; nokuba ingaba unako contradicted by the video footage, nyhani na ukuziqonda kakuhle continued to deny any wrongdoing and iziphumo zezo zenzo.’ Lo mbheni gave a false statement to the police. akabonisanga nanye yezi zinto.

Endaweni yoko, uliguqule ibali lakhe amaxesha aliqela, ezama ukubeka ityala lalo mlo phezu kwabanye abantu, uziveze enkundleni njengexokisa- mthetho ngokunika ubungqina obungeyonyaniso, obaphikiswayo ngokucacileyo yimiboniso yeevidiyo, waqhubeka ukukhanyela mpela ukuba 26

wenze into engalunganga, wanika nengxelo engeyonyaniso emapoliseni.

[19] In all the circumstances I find that [19] Kuzo zonke ezi meko ndifumanisa the high court was correct in its finding ukuba inkundla ephakamileyo yagqiba that there was no misdirection or ngokufanelekilyo ekufumaneni kwayo improper exercise of the discretion by ukuba zange kubekho lulahlekiso- the trial court. All the relevant factors mthethweni okanye kusetyenziswa were appropriately balanced. That being gwenxa kwelungelo lokwenza isigqibo the case, the appellate court is not at yinkundla evavanye ityala. Yawabeka large to interfere with the sentence onke amasolotya esikalini ngendlela imposed by the trial court. I must, efanelekileyo. Xa kunjalo ke, inkundla however, disagree with the high court yezibheno ayikwazi kusiphazamisa on one aspect, which is that the sentence isohlwayo esabekwa yinkundla imposed is a robust one. The period of eyavavanya ityala. Kodwa ke, kukho three years’ imprisonment of which one indawo enye endingavumelani ngayo year is suspended on certain conditions nenkundla ephakamileyo; le ithi esi (effectively a sentence of two years’ sohlwayo sinikiweyo siqatha. Ixesha imprisonment), meets the circumstances lokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka of this case and is in keeping with emithathu, elinyaka mnye oxhonyiweyo sentences that have been imposed by the phezu kwemiqathango ethile courts in similar cases. One similar case (ngokwenene esona sohlwayo sibe is S v Eales8 where the appellant had yiminyaka emibini entolongweni), been convicted of assault with intent to lizifanele iimeko zeli tyala kwaye do grievous bodily harm for striking the lihambelana nezohlwayo esezakhe

8 S v Eales 1991 (1) SACR 160 (N). 27 complainant on the head with a beer zawiswa ziinkundla zamatyala glass, in an unprovoked attack at a hotel. kwimibandela efana nalo. Elinye ityala The attack caused injuries and scarred elifanayo lelika S v Eales apho umbheni the complainant’s face. The appellant waye efunyenwe enetyala lokuhlasela was sentenced to three years’ direct ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa kakubi imprisonment. On appeal, the sentence emzimbeni kuba wayebethe ummangali was altered by suspending one year of entloko ngebhotile yegilasi, emhlasela the three years’ imprisonment for five engamenzanga nto, ehotele ethile. Olo years on certain conditions. The exact hlaselo lwabangela amanxeba neziva sentence has been imposed in this case. ebusweni bommangali. Loo mbheni Notably, the appellant in Eales was an wanikwa isohlwayo esikukuyakudontsa ‘ordinary’ offender. entolongweni iminyaka emithathu

ngqo. Wathi akubhena, isohlwayo eso saguqulwa ngokuxhonywa konyaka omnye kuleya yokuyakudontsa entolongweni, exhonyelwa iminyaka emihlanu phantsi kwemiqathango ethile. Esi sohlwayo sinikiweyo kweli ityala siyafana nqwa nesiya. Into eqaphelekayo ke kukuba lo mbheni uphaya ku-Eales wayengumaphuli- mthetho ongumntu ‘njee’ wasekuhlaleni.

[20] In Makhudu v Director of Public [20] Ku-Makhudu v Director of Public Prosecutions,9 this Court found the Prosecutions, le Nkundla yafumanisa position of the appellant, as a police iwonga lombheni, owaye elipolisa, officer, to be a relevant aggravating ilisolotya elilenza libi ngakumbi tyala. factor. It found his actions to have been Yafumanisa ukuba izenzo zakhe utterly reprehensible, calling for a zazisonyanyeka ngokugqithisileyo, severe response. The Court imposed a zifanelwe sisohlwayo esiqatha. sentence of five years’ imprisonment INkundla ke yamisela isohlwayo for assault with intent to cause grievous seminyaka emihlanu esentolongweni bodily harm. ngokuhlasela omnye ngenjongo

yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni.

[21] I do not read any of the cases cited [21] Kuwo onke amatyala abhekise on behalf of the appellant to be kuwo umbheni andifundanga supportive of the view that custodial ndafumana nto ixhasa oluluvo lokuba sentences are not suitable for first izohlwayo ezihamba nentolongo offenders in cases of serious assault. In azifanelekanga kubantu abaqalayo some of these cases a sentence of direct ukona kwiimeko zohlaselo olubi imprisonment with a portion suspended olunobuzaza. Kwezinye zezimeko was considered appropriate. It must be isohlwayo sokuya ngqo entolongweni remembered that there is no uniformity ekukho inxenye yaso exhonyiweyo in sentencing. While similar cases serve zabonwa zizezifanelekileyo. as a useful guide, the particular Makukhunjulwe ke ukuba akukho circumstances of the offender, the mfano ncam ekumiseleni isohlwayo. nature of the offence and interests of Nangona amatyala afana namanye

9Makhudu v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] ZASCA 21; 2001 (1) SACR 495 (SCA) para 16. 29 society remain the litmus test. These encedisa ukunika isikhokelo circumstances may differ in each case, esincedayo, iimeko ncakasana zomoni, attracting different responses. As was ubunjani balo ulwaphulo-mthetho olo, stated in S v Fraser,10 ‘it is idle exercise kunye nokulungelwa koluntu to try to match the colours of the case at ngokubanzi zihlala ziluvavanyo hand and the colours of other cases with oluziphumo ziyicacisayo imeko. Ezi the object of arriving at an appropriate meko zingohluka kwityala ngalinye, sentence. Each case should be dealt with zifune ke iimpendulo kuzo on its own facts, connected with the ezahlukileyo. Njengoko kwatshiwo ku- crime and the criminal…’ S v Fraser, ‘yinto engasi ndawo ukuzama ukufanisa imibala yetyala elichotshelweyo kunye nemibala yamanye amatyala ngenjongo yokufikelela kwisohlwayo esifanelekileyo. Imeko nganye mayijongwe phezu kwezayo izibakala ezinxulumene nolwaphulo-mthetho kwelotyala kunye nomaphuli-mthetho lowo...’

[22] In the result, the following order is [22] Isiphumo ke ngulomyalelo made: ulandelayo:

1. Condonation for the late filing of 1. Isicelo sombheni sokuxolelwa the appellant’s notice of appeal is kokungeniswa kade kwesaziso granted. sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa.

10 S v Fraser 1987 (2) SA 859 (A) at 863 A-D. 30

2. Condonation for the late filing of 2. Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa the respondent’s heads of argument kokungeniswa kade kwezihloko is granted. zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa.

3. The appeal is dismissed. 3. Isibheno siyachithwa.

______N P MABINDLA-BOQWANA ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL IJAJI YEZIBHENO EBAMBELEYO

APPEARANCES / ABATHETHELELI:

For Appellant/ Omele UMbheni: T N Price SC Instructed by/ Eyalelwa ngaba: Nettletons, Grahamstown Symington & De Kock Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For Respondent/ Omele uMphenduli: N C Turner Instructed by/ Eyalelwa ngaba: Director of Public Prosecutions, Grahamstown Director of Public Prosecutions, Bloemfontein