Judgment reserved in Rodrigues appeal
27 July 2009, 23:22
By Karen Breytenbach
Lawyers for Dina Rodrigues and four others convicted of murdering baby Jordan Norton in 2005 appealed against their sentences on Monday, but the Western Cape High Court sent some of them back to the drawing board to do research on minimum sentencing.
The appeals were heard by a full bench of judges, Acting Judge President Jeanette Traverso, Essa Moosa and Andre le Grange.
In 2007 Judge Basheer Wagley sentenced Sipho Mfazwe, Mongezi Bobotyane and Rodrigues each to life imprisonment, which meant they could only be considered for parole after 25 years, while two teenage co-accused Zanethemba Gwada and Bonginkosi Sigenu were sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Peter Burgers for Mfazwe and Gwada, Emile de Villiers for Bobotyane and Deana Haldenby for Rodrigues, each raised arguments that the trial court had misdirected itself in imposing life sentences despite finding that there were substantial and compelling circumstances to justify stepping away from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
Burgers conceded that the crime his clients committed was "horrendous", but said there were still circumstances that warranted deviation from the prescribed sentences.
Gwada was only 17 at the time and according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and juveniles had to get the shortest possible sentences. A partially suspended sentence could also have been considered, he said.
De Villiers said the trial court over-emphasised the seriousness of the crime, but Traverso interjected, asking him how that was possible, considering the baby was completely defenceless.
She asked if he could think of a more serious crime than this one, to which he did not appear to have an answer.
De Villiers said there were 12 mitigating factors which should have convinced the trial court to impose a lesser sentence than life.
Haldenby said the trial court would have been justified in imposing less than life, but became involved in a debate with the Bench about whether there was legal authority to support her argument.
She conceded that the murder of a baby was "barbaric", but said Rodrigues was a young woman who made a terrible mistake. She had also spent 20 months in custody before her sentence kicked in.
Traverso said the trial court took this all into account, but still found life imprisonment appropriate. She reminded Haldenby that the court could not deduct two years from a life sentence or prescribe to the Department of Correctional Services to consider Rodrigues's eligibility for parole after 23 years.
Advocate Danie Theunissen for Sigenu said the tragedy of this case was that there were essentially two child victims, the baby and his client, who was 16 at the time.
State advocate Nicolette Bell said a lighter sentences would not have been justified.
Traverso asked everyone, apart from Theunissen, to properly analyse the relevant legislation on minimum sentencing. This had to be submitted by August 7.
Read more in Tuesday's editions of The Cape Times newspaper.
Lawyers for Dina Rodrigues and four others convicted of murdering baby Jordan Norton in 2005 appealed against their sentences on Monday, but the Western Cape High Court sent some of them back to the drawing board to do research on minimum sentencing.
The appeals were heard by a full bench of judges, Acting Judge President Jeanette Traverso, Essa Moosa and Andre le Grange.
In 2007 Judge Basheer Wagley sentenced Sipho Mfazwe, Mongezi Bobotyane and Rodrigues each to life imprisonment, which meant they could only be considered for parole after 25 years, while two teenage co-accused Zanethemba Gwada and Bonginkosi Sigenu were sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Peter Burgers for Mfazwe and Gwada, Emile de Villiers for Bobotyane and Deana Haldenby for Rodrigues, each raised arguments that the trial court had misdirected itself in imposing life sentences despite finding that there were substantial and compelling circumstances to justify stepping away from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
Burgers conceded that the crime his clients committed was "horrendous", but said there were still circumstances that warranted deviation from the prescribed sentences.
Gwada was only 17 at the time and according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and juveniles had to get the shortest possible sentences. A partially suspended sentence could also have been considered, he said.
De Villiers said the trial court over-emphasised the seriousness of the crime, but Traverso interjected, asking him how that was possible, considering the baby was completely defenceless.
She asked if he could think of a more serious crime than this one, to which he did not appear to have an answer.
De Villiers said there were 12 mitigating factors which should have convinced the trial court to impose a lesser sentence than life.
Haldenby said the trial court would have been justified in imposing less than life, but became involved in a debate with the Bench about whether there was legal authority to support her argument.
She conceded that the murder of a baby was "barbaric", but said Rodrigues was a young woman who made a terrible mistake. She had also spent 20 months in custody before her sentence kicked in.
Traverso said the trial court took this all into account, but still found life imprisonment appropriate. She reminded Haldenby that the court could not deduct two years from a life sentence or prescribe to the Department of Correctional Services to consider Rodrigues's eligibility for parole after 23 years.
Advocate Danie Theunissen for Sigenu said the tragedy of this case was that there were essentially two child victims, the baby and his client, who was 16 at the time.
State advocate Nicolette Bell said a lighter sentences would not have been justified.
Traverso asked everyone, apart from Theunissen, to properly analyse the relevant legislation on minimum sentencing. This had to be submitted by August 7.
Pretoria
