S v Allegrucci (CRB REG 685 of 2001) [2002] ZWBHC 37 (21 June 2002)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f28\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f29\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f31\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f32\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f33\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f34\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f35\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\qr \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}}{\info{\author John Reid-Rowland}{\operator John Reid-Rowland}{\creatim\yr2002\mo7\dy31\hr8\min22}{\revtim\yr2002\mo7\dy31\hr8\min23}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords1500}{\nofchars8554} {\nofcharsws10504}{\vern8247}}\paperw11899\paperh16837\margl1797\margr1797 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind1\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl \fet0\sectd \pgnrestart\linex0\sectdefaultcl {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\kerning0 \par }}{\footer \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\kerning0 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s1\qr \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 { \par \par }\pard \s1\qr \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 {Judgment No. HB 37/2002 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Case No. HCA 190/2001 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab CRB REG 685/2001 \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 JEAN CLAUDE ALLEGRUCCI \par \par and \par \par THE STATE \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE \par SIBANDA & CHEDA JJ \par BULAWAYO 20 JUNE 2002 \par \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 R M Fitches}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 for the appellant \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Mrs M Moya-Matshanga }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 for the respondent \par \par }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Criminal Appeal \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 \par \tab }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 SIBANDA J:\tab }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 This is an appeal from the Regional Magistrates\rquote court in which \par \par the state has conceded that \'93the sentence does shock the conscience, and that a fine \par \par would meet the justice of the case.\'94 \par \par \tab In view of the state concession we decided not to hear submissions on merits, \par \par but invited both counsel to make submissions on the quantum of the fine to be \par \par imposed. \par \par \tab On 24 September 2001 the appellant, a South African citizen was arraigned \par \par before a Regional Magistrate on a charge of fraud. He was convicted on his own plea \par \par of guilty and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with labour of which one year \par \par imprisonment with labour was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good \par \par behaviour. He now appeals against sentence only. \par \par \tab The appellant owned a Mazda (twin cab) registration number 726-226H. The \par \par said vehicle was under an insurance cover with Eagle Insurance Company. He \par \par fraudulently misrepresented to the insurance company that the said vehicle was stolen \par \par in South Africa. On that basis he claimed and was paid an indemnity cover in the sum \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 37/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -2- \par \par of $1 560 000,00 for the vehicle. He defrauded the company in order to raise funds \par \par for the operation of his business in particular to set up a new business in Zimbabwe. \par \par \tab The insurance company after paying the said amounts conducted its own \par \par investigations of the alleged theft. It discovered that the alleged theft was false but \par \par that the appellant had in fact sold the vehicle. When approached, the appellant \par \par admitted the fraud, co-operated with the insurer and voluntarily on his own initiative \par \par and accord made full restitution including the costs of investigations plus interest at \par \par the rate of 45% per annum which rate was 23% per annum above the then prevailing \par \par rate of 22% per annum. He paid in restitution the sum of $2 300 000,00. \par \par \tab The appeal is against sentence only on the grounds that the court }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 a quo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 \par \par misdirected itself in that it failed to have due regard and accord due consideration to \par \par all the mitigating factors, in particular, that the appellant had made full restitution in \par \par an amount far in excess of the amount defrauded. \par \par \tab It appears to me that this case falls within the ambit of the case of }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Richard \par \par Muguji Mambo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 The State}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 SC 14/95 (not reported) cyclostyled judgment at page 5 \par \par in which the learned judge of appeal, McNALLY JA stated, \'93it seems to me that \par \par it is also in the Zimbabwean tradition that compensation, restitution and restoration \par \par are at the heart of criminal justice, rather than mere punishment which benefits the \par \par victim not at all.\'94 \par \par See also }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Zindoga}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 1980 RLR 86 AD at 88F \par \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Mpofu}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 1985(1)ZLR 285 (HC) at 294 et seg \par \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Hapaguti}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 142/87 (not reported) at 3 \par \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Marimba}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S 58/90 (not reported) \par \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Mvula}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S 69/92 (not reported) at 8; and \par \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 S}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 v }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Malume}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 1998(2) ZLR 508 at 512g \par \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 37/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -3- \par \par \tab The instant case is distinguishable from the general line of cases cited }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 supra}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 , \par \par in that while they mainly deal with the issue of the desirability to induce an accused to \par \par pay restitution by suspending part of the sentence on those conditions whereas in the \par \par present case the appellant has already made full restitution without inducement and \par \par indeed on his own initiative prior to conviction and sentence. \par \par \tab The state has in my view, on these facts, properly conceded that the sentence \par \par does induce a sense of shock and that a fitting punishment should have been to give \par \par the appellant the option of a fine. \par \par \tab I am in agreement with state counsel that the sentence is rather on the punitive \par \par side. It has not, given credit to appellant\rquote s payment of restitution far in excess of the \par \par amount he defrauded the complainant. Further he brought into this country \par \par US$480 000,00 for investment. He invested into mining at Turk Mine where he \par \par employs 80 people. In addition he employs 37 people in the construction industry and \par \par further he is building a lodge between Bulawayo and Victoria Falls which upon \par \par completion will employ about 35 people. He is, therefore, an employer and potential \par \par employer of 152 people most likely with families. Thus the appellant has a direct \par \par responsibility of providing means for subsistance to approximately 500 people \par \par assuming of course that each of the 152 employees has a family of between 2 to 3 \par \par members apart from himself. \par \par \tab Yes, the court }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 a quo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 is correct when it states that the amount involved in this \par \par case is substantial even if inflation is taken into account. It was for that reason, that, \par \par even though appellant had paid restitution in full and was sorry, the magistrate still \par \par felt that a \'93certain term of imprisonment would meet the justice of the case.\'94 \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 37/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -4- \par \par \tab This reasoning creates an unmistakable impression that only accused \par \par convicted of theft of lesser amounts may be given the option of a fine and not those \par \par in the category of the appellant. That approach, to me, would constitute an untenable \par \par situation that would amount to pre-judging such cases of theft involving substantial \par \par amounts of money or goods of substantial value. \par \par \tab Such notion or view, in my respectful opinion can only be based upon a false \par \par perception that all accused convicted of theft of substantial amounts or goods of \par \par substantial value are incapable of contrition repentence and indeed reformation. \par \par \tab The difference between them may be accounted for in respect of courage, \par \par ability and opportunity that avail itself or indeed created. But the fact remains the \par \par same that they are all dishonest members of society. Thus each case must be \par \par considered on its own merits. I would neither subscribe to the notion nor view, that in \par \par all cases of accused convicted of theft of substantial amounts of money or goods of \par \par substantial value, for that matter, who have on their own initiative and accord prior to \par \par conviction and sentence made good their damage by paying full restitution and in \par \par circumstances that clearly indicate that the said accused is contrite, repentent and \par \par certainly reformed, should not be given the benefits of the option of a fine in \par \par punishment. \par \par \tab In my respectful view, what should be of paramount consideration and \par \par importance is the individual accused and the facts of the case in respect of his \par \par conduct. The question in my submission ought to be, does his conduct subsequent to \par \par the commission of the offence, signify that of a contrite, repentent and reformed \par \par individual. If all the relevant factors consistent with the above factors are found to be \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 37/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -5- \par \par present then the individual ought to be rewarded by a none custodial punishment. \par \par \tab In the instant case, appellant paid restitution on his own initiative and accord \par \par prior to conviction and sentence. He defrauded the complainant of the sum of \par \par $1 560 000,00. He repaid to the complainant a total amount of $2 300 000,00. The \par \par appellant paid an amount of $740 000 in excess of the amount he defrauded his \par \par insurer, which amount is said to include unspecified expenses paid by the insurer in \par \par respect of investigations and interest at the rate of 45% per annum which was 23% per \par \par annum above the prevailing rate of 22% per annum interest at the time. Further, the \par \par court found as a fact that the appellant was sorry. \par \par \tab It is my respectful opinion that the extent of the restitution elevates the instant \par \par case to a level of its own which is none comparable to any of the decided cases that I \par \par have had occasion to study. In addition the appellant is and has been out on bail since \par \par his conviction and sentence. In these circumstances it is my respectful view that to \par \par send the appelant to prison would amount to punitive punishment without purpose and \par \par objective. I am of the view therefore, that the appellant deserves credit for his conduct \par \par and the same to be expressed by affording the appellant the option of a fine. \par \par \tab The appeal is against sentence only. I would, therefore confirm the conviction. \par \par I would give the appellant the option of a fine, coupled with a wholly suspended term \par \par of imprisonment. \par \par \tab Counsel for the appellant with the concurrence of the state counsel, submitted \par \par that a fine in the region of $100 000,00 would meet the justice of the case. This \par \par submission is based on the fact that appellant apart from payment in restitution of the \par \par actual sum defrauded, has in addition paid a total sum of $740 000,00. That a fine of \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 37/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -6- \par \par $100 000,00 would bring the cost of the crime to appellant to $840 000,00. Thus, it is \par \par submitted that, that amount should constitute adequate punishment of the appellant. \par \par \tab I am in agreement with that submission. Had the appellant not paid in addition \par \par to the restitution, the sum of $740 000,00 I would have found nothing amiss in \par \par sentencing the apellant to a fine in the region about $500 000. Indeed, to a business \par \par person in the mould of the appellant, the cost of his fraudulent conduct in the total \par \par sum of $840 000,00 must have conveyed a solitary lesson to him. That, in my view, \par \par ought to constitute a just reward for appellant\rquote s misadventure into the realm of \par \par dishonest. Most certainly, he must have learnt his lesson that crime does not pay. For \par \par these reasons, I am of the respectful view, that in these circumstances punitive \par \par punishment is not called for as it would serve no useful purpose. \par \par \tab Accordingly, the sentence is quashed and set aside, and the following \par \par substituted. Accused is to pay a fine in the sum of $100 000,00 or in default of \par \par payment 3 years imprisonment with labour. In addition the accused is sentenced to 3 \par \par years imprisonment with labour wholly suspended for 5 years on condition the \par \par accused is not, during that period, convicted of a crime in which dishonest is an \par \par element and that upon conviction is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a \par \par fine. \par \par \tab \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Cheda J: I agree \par \par \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Webb, Low & Barry}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 appellant\rquote s legal practitioners \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 Criminal Dvision of the Attorney-General}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 \rquote }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 s Office}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057 respondent\rquote s legal practioner \par }}