R v Pelea (CRI/T 48 of 95) [2000] LSCA 34 (4 February 2000)

1 CRI/T/48/95 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter b e t w e e n: R EX v T S O T A NG P E L EA E X T E N U A T I NG C I R C U M S T A N C ES A ND M I T I G A T I ON D e l i v e r ed by t he H o n o u r a b le Mr Justice T. M o n a p a t hi on t he 4th d ay of F e b r u a ry 2 0 00 T he A c c u s ed w as f o u nd guilty of the m u r d er of P h a l l a ng M o s a la on the 25th J a n u a r y, 2 0 0 0. Y e s t e r d ay I f o u nd this a c c u s ed f a v o u r ed w i th existence of extenuating circumstances. I n o t ed that those extenuating c i r c u m s t a n c es are c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i ch influenced the a c c u s e d 's m e n t al faculties or m i n d, w h i ch c o n c e rn the c r i me w i th w h i ch he h as b e en convicted, b e i ng reasons for w h i ch his i n v o l v e m e nt is considered as being less b l a m e w o r t h y. A nd 1 w as referred to the c a se S T A TE V M I NI 1 9 63 (3) S. A. 1 88 A . D. It h as b e en stated that extenuating c i r c u m s t a n c es m ay be defined as a ny facts bearing on the c o m m i s s i on of the c r i me w h i ch r e d u ce the m o r al b l a m e w o r t h i n e ss of t he a c c u s ed as distinct f r om legal c a p a c i t y. M i ss M o h a pi for d e f e n c e, referred to me c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i ch s he said I m u st consider. Firstly w h e t h er there are a ny facts w h i ch m i g ht be relevant to extenuation s u ch immaturity, intoxication or p r o v o c a t i o n. S e c o n d l y, w h e t h er s u ch facts in their c u m u l a t i ve effect p r o b a b ly h ad a b e a r i ng on the a c c u s e d 's state of m i nd in d o i ng w h at he did. Thirdly, w h e t h er s u ch facts h ad a b e a r i ng sufficiently e n o u gh to abate the b l a me w o r t h i n e ss of the A c c u s ed in d o i ng w h at he did. I w as referred the c a se of S T A TE V L E T S ' O LO 1 9 70 ( 3) S. A. 4 76 at 4 76 ( F) - 4 77 ( B ). I a g r e ed that the e v i d e n ce in the r e c o rd s h o w ed that the A c c u s ed w as drinking alcohol at the t i me of the c o m m i s s i on of the c r i m e, as the c r i me w as i n d e ed c o m m i t t ed in the bar. T he A c c u s ed a d m i t t ed that there w as s u ch drinking before the c o m m i s s i on of the crime. T h is w as o ne of the things that I c o n s i d e r ed as extenuation. I n o t ed that s u ch d r u n k e n n e ss n e ed n ot be to the e x t e nd that it c o u ld n e g a te intention. It w as s u b m i t t ed that the court w o u ld still h a ve to consider s u ch k i nd of d r u n k e n n e ss e v en if it was d e n i ed by the A c c u s ed himself. It w as also clear f r om the e v i d e n ce of b o th the C r o wn a nd the D e f e n ce that the killing resulted f r om e x c h a n ge of a b u s i ve w o r d s, there w as an e x c h a n ge of those w o r ds b e t w e en the d e c e a s ed a nd the a c c u s e d. A l t h o u gh s o me witnesses did n ot h e ar s u ch w o r ds a nd a l t h o u gh there m ay h a ve b e en s o me d i s a g r e e m e nt as to the content a nd so forth b ut there w e re those w o r ds w h i ch w e re p r o v o c a t i ve e n o u gh s u ch as that the A c c u s e d, I quote f r om the e v i d e n ce of M a r t ha ( P W 5) "the d e c e a s ed will castrate his o wn m o t h er that the A c c u s ed w as the detective a nd that the A c c u s ed w o u ld be castrated". It w as e m p h a s i z ed that factors s u ch as p r o v o c a t i on a nd the intoxication w e re to be c o n s i d e r ed e v en if the A c c u s ed m ay d e ny their existence. I t o ok those factors cumulatively as it w as submitted. I a g r ee therefore that in my discretion I w o u ld i m p o se a ny other sentence u p on this A c c u s ed other t h an that of death. In this regard I w as referred to the c a se of R EX V S E T E N A NE M A B A SO A ND O T H E RS 1 9 82 - 1 9 84 L LR 3 19 a nd particularly at p a ge 3 3 5. I w as referred again to that c a se of S T A TE V L E T S ' O LO ( s u p r a ). In regard to extenuation, I w as generally referred to the authority of C R I M I N AL L AW A ND P R O C E D U RE T H R O U GH C A S ES in relation to s o me principles in d e t e r m i n i ng the existence or otherwise of extenuating circumstances, this w o rk by J u d ge M . P. M o f o k e ng at p a ge 2 4 2, the aspect a p p e a r i ng at (e) A nd the c a se of S T A TE V S I G W A H LA 1 9 67 (4) S. A. 5 66 w h i ch Mr L e n o no for the C r o wn referred to m e. I finally c o n s i d e r ed this aspect of the fact that there w as indirect intention that led to the killing, this w h i ch is called dolus indirectus. ON M I T I G A T I ON T h is m o r n i ng I w as a d d r e s s ed on mitigation of sentence. I first n o t ed that the A c c u s e d, Mr P e l ea w as a thirty nine ( 3 9) years old f o r m er p o l i c e m a n. At the time of the c o m m i s s i on of the offence he w as still a p o l i c e m a n. T he likelihood w as that he w o u ld be dismissed f r om this w o rk as a result of this conviction. I a g r e ed with M i ss M o h a pi that first a nd f o r e m o st w e re the personal c i r c u m s t a n c es of an a c c u s ed p e r s on w h i ch m u st be considered. I noted that the A c c u s ed w as a m a r r i ed m an w i th t wo children. O ne other thing that I also considered w as the aspect of the relationship of this a c c u s ed p e r s on a nd the d e c e a s e d, the latter w ho w as a f o r m er p o l i c e m a n. I believed that they w e re friends although the d e c e a s ed h ad b e en dismissed f r om his job. I n d e ed the A c c u s ed did n ot say he did anything t o w a r ds the family of the d e c e a s ed as after his death by w ay of a t o n e m e nt or c o m p e n s a t i o n. This he attributed to the attitude of the d e c e a s e d 's father-in-law. I w as u r g ed by M i ss M o h a pi to c o n s i d er that this a c c u s ed p e r s on w as a first o f f e n d er It w as said he w as a first offender w i th r e g a rd to my b e i ng p e r s u a d ed or in an effort to p e r s u a de me that he o u g ht n ot to be s e n t e n c ed to i m p r i s o n m e n t. In r e s p o n se to that I instantly replied in that my attitude w o u ld be that, that a first offender m ay not get a s e n t e n ce of i m p r i s o n m e nt w as n ot a fixed rule. T h at c a se of R EX V M A K O S H O LO C r i m i n al R e v i ew O r d er N o. 20 of 1 9 82 s h o w ed that the fact that an offender w as a first offender d o es n ot g u a r a n t ee h im a p u n i s h m e nt o ut of prison. I n d e ed it d e p e n d ed on the merit of e a ch individual case. O ne thing that h ad to be t a k en into a c c o u n t, w i t h o ut hesitation , w as that this a c c u s ed h ad c o m m i t t ed a serious offence. T h is w as an overriding consideration. I n d e ed the A c c u s ed m i g ht be e x p o s ed to d a n g e r o us e l e m e n ts in prison. B ut the p u r p o se of prison h as primarily b e en to rehabilitate p e o p l e. It w o u ld therefore be hysterical to s u s p e ct that e v e ry prisoner is at the risk of c o n t a m i n a t i o n. I h a ve c o n s i d e r ed that this killing a nd the m a t t er of the c h a r ge of this A c c u s ed are matters of since the y e ar 1 9 8 9. T he investigation of this o f f e n ce including the c h a r ge against the a c c u s ed are m a t t e rs of o v er ten years. T h is a c c u s ed p e r s on h as b e en n ow in prison by o r d er of this court for o v er a m o n t h. I w o u ld n ot be u n m i n d f ul of the k i nd of p r o v o c a t i on that the a c c u s ed w e nt t h r o u gh w h i ch resulted in the killing. It w as an e x t r e me k i nd of p r o v o c a t i o n. I c a n n ot also be u n m i n d f ul of the fact of there h a v i ng b e en drinking. I n d e ed s u ch drinking that I m u st c o n s i d er or the intoxication n e ed n ot be of a serious kind. T he drinking, t he intoxication n e ed n ot be of e x t r e me kind, it suffices that it m u st h a ve influenced the a c c u s ed p e r s o n. I c o n c l u d e d, dispute A c c u s e d 's denial, that he m u st s o m e w h at h a ve b e en influenced by his drinking of beer. I n e e d ed to refer to the aspect of e x t r e me p r o v o c a t i o n. It c r o s s ed my m i nd a nd i n d e ed I a g o n i ze o v er it w h e t h er considering the e v i d e n ce that we h a ve before us that p r o v o c a t i on c o u ld not h a ve b e en a d e f e n ce in itself. B ut I noted that this w as not to b e, that is, there w as a great reluctance on the part of the d e f e n ce to e v en consider that could be a d e f e n c e. B ut I am h o w e v er satisfied that it is a m a t t er to consider for the p u r p o se of the p u n i s h m e n t. T h is a c c u s ed person w as a p o l i c e m a n. Mr L e n o no h as w a r n ed that the court h ad to consider that a p o l i c e m an w ho did an offence of this k i nd w h i le on duty, c a n n ot be treated in a serious light. I n d e ed s u ch w as a situation in the instant o n e, w h e re a p o l i c e m an h as actually killed a civilian. I w as referred to the attitude of the C o u rt of A p p e a l, in that c a se of N T H U N YA L E L E KA V R E X, C o u rt of A p p e al N o .1 of 1 9 73 a nd the c a se of S A M U EL M O T L O M E LO V R EX 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 70 L LR 8 1. In those cases j u d g es h a ve said that the c o n d u ct of the m e m b er of the police should n ot be treated lightly in c i r c u m s t a n ce s u ch as this o n e. I a g r e ed w i th t h em a nd that w as my attitude. I h ad to s ay that I f o u nd Mr P e l ea to be a very intelligent m a n. I w as confident that s h o u ld he h a ve b e en w i th the force by n ow he w o u ld h a ve b e en p r o m o t ed into the u p p er ranks. A terrible thing o c c u r r ed to h i m. I w as r e m i n d ed that Mr P e l ea s p o ke of the t e m p e r a m e nt of the d e c e a s e d. I r e m i n d ed m y s e lf w h at Mr Pelea said a b o ut the t e m p e r a m e nt of the d e c e a s e d, that the d e c e a s ed h ad e v en b e en convicted of an a t t e m p t ed m u r d er of s o m e t h i ng like that a nd that he w o u ld m o re likely than n ot h a ve b e en violent. Objectively or e v en alternatively w h en p l a c ed in positions w h i ch Mr P e l ea m u st h a ve b e en he should n ot h a ve u s ed the m e a ns that he used. He should not h a ve killed this m an in the hasty fashion that is s h o wn by the e v i d e n ce the C r o w n. I w as p e r s u a d ed that this w as not a case w h e re a s u s p e n d e n ce sentence w o u ld fit the circumstances. T h at I w o u ld not do a nd the seriousness of the offence s p o ke for itself. I h a ve decided that the a c c u s ed be sentenced to a period of five (5) years in prison. He is sentenced to a period of five years i m p r i s o n m e n t. T. M O N A P A T HI J U D GE 4th February 2000 For the Crown : M r. M. Lenono F or the Accused : Miss R. L. M o h a pi 6