Key Takeaways
- Sabelo Dan Cele’s prison sentence has been reduced from 41 years and six months to 28 years by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)
- Cele was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and possession of a firearm and ammunition
- The SCA found that the high court failed to consider the consequences of the multiple sentences imposed and that the original sentence was excessively harsh
- The court reduced Cele’s sentence for murder to 18 years and for attempted robbery to 10 years, with the remaining sentences running concurrently
- The SCA emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the need for sentences to be realistic and not excessively harsh
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has reduced the prison sentence of Sabelo Dan Cele, who was originally sentenced to 41 years and six months imprisonment for multiple offences, including murder. Cele was one of five accused who stood trial in the High Court in Johannesburg and was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and possession of a firearm and ammunition. The original sentence was imposed under Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLAA), which prescribes a minimum sentence of life imprisonment for murder.
The Appeal Process
Cele initially appealed his sentence, resulting in a reduction of his attempted robbery sentence from 17 years to 15 years. However, the overall sentence remained unchanged, prompting him to take the matter to the SCA. Before the SCA, Cele argued that the high court had committed a procedural "irregularity" by refusing to allow his legal representative to make submissions in mitigation of sentence. He claimed that this amounted to a misdirection that rendered the sentence invalid and that the sentence was excessively harsh. Cele also contended that the trial court had failed to properly consider his personal circumstances and had focused too heavily on punishment and deterrence at the expense of rehabilitation.
The SCA Judgment
In a judgment delivered on 19 December, SCA judge Tati Makgoka, with four judges concurring, dismissed the claim of procedural unfairness. The judge found that the high court was entitled to refuse submissions from the bar in mitigation of sentence and had informed Cele’s legal representative of this decision beforehand. Cele himself chose not to testify in mitigation. The SCA also confirmed that the high court had correctly identified substantial and compelling circumstances that justified a departure from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. However, the SCA found that the high court had failed to take into account the consequences of the multiple sentences imposed.
The Importance of Rehabilitation
The SCA emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the need for sentences to be realistic and not excessively harsh. Makgoka described the 41 years and six months imprisonment as improper, particularly given that Cele was 28 years old at the time of sentencing, was a first-time offender, and had not completed high school. These factors, the judge said, pointed to the possibility of rehabilitation. The judge also noted that the murder occurred during a failed robbery and was not premeditated, meaning it was committed with reckless intent rather than direct intent. Additionally, Cele had voluntarily surrendered himself to the police after the murder, which was seen as a significant mitigating factor demonstrating a willingness to submit to the authority of the law.
The Reduced Sentence
The SCA upheld Cele’s appeal and reduced his sentence for murder to 18 years, while his sentence for attempted robbery was reduced to 10 years. The remaining sentences will remain unchanged, but will now run concurrently with the murder sentence. As a result, Cele will serve an effective 28 years imprisonment. The sentence is antedated to 6 May 2013. The reduced sentence reflects the SCA’s emphasis on rehabilitation and the need for sentences to be realistic and not excessively harsh. The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case and the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that takes into account both punishment and rehabilitation.
