S v Alexander and Another (CC 77 of 1992) [1992] NAHC 5 (29 May 1992)

i THE S T A TE vs P A U L US A L E X A N D ER & 1 OTHER CC 77/92 O ' L i n n, J 1 9 9 2 / 0 5 / 29 C r i m i n al L aw R o b b e ry W h e re an a r t i c le is snatched from a p e r s o n, such as a the e l e m e nt of h a n d b ag or g l a s s es or w h a t e v er it i s, v i o l e n ce r e q u i r ed for the crime of R o b b e ry is already p r e s e n t. R o b b e ry can be c o m m i t t ed even if v i o l e n ce f o l l o ws an taking is of p e r s o ns p r o p e r t y, n a r r o w ly c o n n e c t ed to the taking e.g. w h e re the v i c t im is stabbed w h en he a t t e m p ts to r e c o v er h is p r o p e r ty from the t h i e f, i m m e d i a t e ly a f t er the taking. f o l l o w i ng v i o l e n ce w h e re the IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF N A M I B IA In t he m a t t er b e t w e en THE S T A TE v e r s us 1. P A U L US A L E X A N D ER 2. N G H I L I FA G A B R I EL CORAM: O ' L I N N, J. H e a rd o n: 1 9 9 2 . 0 5 . 2 6 , 27 and 29 D e l i v e r ed o n: 1992.05.29 J U D G M E NT O'LINN, J.: T he a c c u s ed P A U L US A L E X A N D E R, a 25 y e ar old m a le of N a m i b i an n a t i o n a l i ty and N G H I L I FA G A B R I E L, a 18 y e ar old m a le of N a m i b i an n a t i o n a l i ty a p p e a r ed b e f o re me on c h a r g es of (1) M u r d er and (2) R o b b e ry (with a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es as d e f i n ed in s e c t i on 1 of A ct 51 of 1977) - "IN T H AT on or a b o ut t he 25th O c t o b er 1991 and at or n e ar I n d e p e n d e n ce A v e n u e, W i n d h o ek in t he d i s t r i ct of W i n d h o ek t he a c c u s ed u n l a w f u l ly and i n t e n t i o n a l ly k i l l ed A N D R E AS U Z I G O. IN T H AT on or about 25 O c t o b er 1991 and at or near I n d e p e n d e n ce A v e n u e, W i n d h o ek in t he d i s t r i ct of W i n d h o ek the a c c u s ed u n l a w f u l ly and w i th t he i n t e n t i on of forcing h im i n to s u b m i s s i o n, a s s a u l t ed A n d r e as U z i go by s t a b b i ng h im w i th a k n i fe and u n l a w f u l ly and w i th i n t e nt to steal took f r om his p o s s e s s i on a p a ir of s u n g l a s s es the p r o p e r ty of or in t he lawful p o s s e s s i on of the said A n d r e as U z i g o. A ND T H AT a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es as d e f i n ed in s e c t i on 1 of A ct 51 of 1977 a re p r e s e nt in t h at t he a c c u s ed a n d / or an a c c o m p l i ce w e r e, b e f o r e, a f t er or d u r i ng t he c o m m i s s i on of t he c r i m e, in p o s s e s s i on of a d a n g e r o us w e a p o n, n a m e ly a k n i f e ". In t he S t a t e 's summary of s u b s t a n t i al f a c ts t he S t a t e 's c a se w as b r i e f ly stated as f o l l o w s: "On F r i d ay a f t e r n o o n, t he 2 5 th of O c t o b er 1 9 9 1, a p p r o x i m a t e ly 14h00 t he d e c e a s ed w as in I n d e p e n d e n ce A v e n u e, W i n d h o e k. He w as w a l k i ng on t he s i d e - w a lk in a s o u t h e r ly d i r e c t i o n. T he a c c u s ed a p p r o a c h ed h im a nd a c c u s ed n o. 1 s n a t c h ed his s u n g l a s s es from his e y e s, a nd h a n d ed t h em to a c c u s ed n o. 2. T he d e c e a s ed a s k ed t h at his g l a s s es be r e t u r n e d, b ut a c c u s ed no.l s t a b b ed h im w i th a sharp object in h is t h r o a t. T he d e c e a s ed d i ed on t he scene d ue to e x s a n g u i n a t i on b e c a u se of t he s t a b w o u nd in t he t h r o a t ". In t h is C o u rt b o th t he a c c u s ed p l e a d ed n ot guilty to b o th c h a r g e s. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1, h o w e v e r, e x p l a i n ed in e x p l a n a t i on of p l ea t h at he in fact did i n j u re t he d e c e a s ed w i th a k n i fe and t h at t he d e c e a s ed in fact died as a r e s u lt t h e r e o f. H e, h o w e v e r, i n d i c a t ed t h at he had no i n t e n t i on to k i ll t he d e c e a s e d. In so far as t he c r i me of r o b b e ry is c o n c e r n ed he d e n i ed t h at he had t a k en t he s u n g l a s s es from t he d e c e a s ed p r i or to t he injury or at any s t a g e. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 in his e x p l a n a t i on of p l ea i n d i c a t ed t h at he d id not see a n y o ne g r a b b i ng the sunglasses but t h at a c o l o u r ed p e r s on by the n a me of S o on handed the g l a s s es to h im w h i l st he w as w a l k i ng from t he d i r e c t i on of the W i n d h o ek C e n t r al P o st O f f i ce t o w a r ds t he alleged scene of c r i me in front of t he m u s ic s h o p. A c c o r d i ng to him he d id n ot p a r t i c i p a te in e i t h er t he injury to t he d e c e a s ed or t he t a k i ng or s n a t c h i ng of t he s u n g l a s s es from his e y e s. T he S t a te w as r e p r e s e n t ed in t h is C o u rt by Mr J a n u a r ie d e l e g a t ed by t he o f f i ce of t he P r o s e c u t o r - G e n e r al a nd t he a c c u s ed w e re r e p r e s e n t ed by Mr H i n d a, on the i n s t r u c t i o ns of t he L e g al A id B o a r d. T he S t a te c a l l ed t he f o l l o w i ng w i t n e s s e s, n a m e l y: Dr L i n da L i e b e n b e rg C o n s t a b le L . B e u k es Mr S a l m on C l o e te Mr M i c h a el A n d i ma T he d e f e n ce c a l l ed b o th a c c u s ed to t e s t i fy for the d e f e n c e. At t he e nd of all t he e v i d e n ce the following facts a p p e a r ed to be c o m m on c a u s e: 1. B o th a c c u s ed and t wo state w i t n e s s es S a l m on C l o e te and M i c h a el A n d i ma had b e en roaming around in a g r o up t h r o u gh t he streets of W i n d h o ek d u r i ng t he m o r n i ng of F r i d ay the 25th F e b r u a ry 1991 b e f o re t he k i l l i ng of the d e c e a s e d. 2. D u r i ng t h is t i me they v i s i t ed the shop k n o wn as " S h o p r i t e ". T h e re w i t n e ss M i c h a el o b t a i n ed a k n i fe e i t h er by p u r c h a se or t h e ft w h i ch w as s u b s e q u e n t l y, b ut p r i or to the k i l l i ng of the d e c e a s e d, w r a p p ed in a n e w s p a p er and h a n d ed to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, P a u l us A l e x a n d e r. 3. T he k n i fe is d e s c r i b ed as a k i t c h e n - k n i fe a b o ut 30 c e n t i m e t r es in length w i th t he p o i nt of t he b l a de f o r m i ng a s h a rp p o i nt and t a p e r i ng d o wn f r om t he b l u nt side of the b l a de t o w a r ds the c u t t i ng e d g e. 4. At a b o ut 14h00 on the same day the a f o r e s a id g r o up c a me a c r o ss t he d e c e a s e d. 5. T he d e c e a s ed w as w e a r i ng s u n g l a s s e s. 6. S o m e b o dy a p p r o x i m a t e ly at t h at t i m e, snatched t he s u n g l a s s es from the d e c e a s e d 's f a c e. 7. T he d e c e a s ed accosted a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, P a u l us A l e x a n d er a nd r e q u e s t ed the r e t u rn of the s u n g l a s s e s. 8. T h e r e u p on a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 m a de a m o v e m e nt w i th t he a f o r e s a id k n i fe w h i ch r e s u l t ed in an i n j u ry to t he neck of t he d e c e a s e d. 9. T he w o u nd w as an incised w o u nd 26 m i l l i m e t r es long on t he o u t s i de of t he skin of the d e c e a s ed a nd 60 m i l l i m e t r es d e e p. It e n t e r ed on t he r i g ht side of t he t h r o at and extended h o r i z o n t a l ly to t he l e f t, p a s s i ng b e h i nd the r i g ht side of the c a r o t id a r t e ry and jugular v e i n, t h r o u gh the right w i ng of t he t h y r o id c a r t i l a g e, t h r o u gh t he u p p er o e s o p h a g us and p a r t i a l ly severed t he left c a r o t id artery and jugular v e i n. M o d e r a te force w o u ld h a ve b e en r e q u i r ed to c a u se the w o u n d. 1 0. The c a u se of d e a th w as e x s a n g u i n a t i on d ue to a stab w o u nd i n to the t h r o a t. 1 1. The a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 caused t he death of t he d e c e a s e d. 1 2. T he a c c u s ed fell down and d i ed on t he s c e ne shortly a f t er b e i ng stabbed. 1 3. The t wo a c c u s ed as w e ll as t he t wo a f o r e s a id s t a te w i t n e s s es ran away from t he scene a nd w as s u b s e q u e n t ly a r r e s t e d. 1 4. W h en a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 fled from t he scene he w as in p o s s e s s i on of the sunglasses of t he d e c e a s e d. 1 5. T h e se s u n g l a s s es w e re handed to h im at t he s c e ne shortly b e f o re t he deceased w as s t a b b e d, e i t h er by a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 or by state w i t n e ss S a l m on C l o e t e. T he f a c ts a n d / or issues in d i s p u te at t he c l o se of t he e v i d e n ce w e re the f o l l o w i n g: 1. Did S a l m on C l o e te steal the k n i fe or b uy it? 2. Did a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 force him to hand o v er t he k n i fe to h im or did C l o e te v o l u n t a r i ly h a nd it to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1. 3. Did S a l m on C l o e te or accused n u m b er 1, s n a t ch t he s u n g l a s s es from the face of t he d e c e a s ed or d id a n o t h er p e r s on do s o. 4. D id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 hand t he s u n g l a s s es to a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 or d id w i t n e ss C l o e te hand it to a c c u s ed n u m b er 2? 5. W as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 p r e s e nt w i th accused n u m b er 1 and the t wo state w i t n e s s es w h en the g l a s s es w as snatched f r om t he face of t he d e c e a s ed and w h en t he d e c e a s ed w as injured by a c c u s ed n u m b er 1? 6. D id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 c a r ry the k n i fe in his h a nd a f t er r e c e i v i ng it from w i t n e ss M i c h a el and b e f o re i n j u ry to t he d e c e a s ed or did he k e ep t he k n i fe i n s i de or p a r t ly inside his t r o u s e r s? 7. D id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 stab the d e c e a s ed as t e s t i f i ed by t he state w i t n e s s es C l o e te a nd M i c h a el A n d i ma or d id accused n u m b er 1 only f l i ck h is hand s l i g h t ly in a m o v e m e nt to i n d i c a te t h at t he d e c e a s ed m u st leave him alone a n d / or w as t he d e c e a s ed p u s h ed by someone else o n to t he k n i fe a n d / or d id a c c u s ed number 1 stab t he d e c e a s ed i n t e n t i o n a l l y? 8. D id a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 a s s o c i a te himself w i th t he a c t i on of a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 a n d / or the p e r s on w ho snatched t he sunglasses from t he face of t he d e c e a s e d. As to t he first t wo i s s u es of the facts in d i s p u t e, n a m e ly (1) d id M i c h a el A n d i ma steal the knife or buy it and (2) d id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 force h im to hand over the k n i fe to h im or d id M i c h a el A n d i ma v o l u n t a r i ly hand it to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1. As far as t h e se first t wo issues in d i s p u te are c o n c e r n e d, t he C o u rt c a n n ot r u le out t he r e a s o n a b le p o s s i b i l i ty t h at t he e v i d e n ce of t he t wo a c c u s ed are c o r r e ct in so far as t h ey a l l e g ed t h at M i c h a el A n d i ma actually w as one of t h o se w ho s t o le k n i v es on t h at p a r t i c u l ar m o r n i ng and a l so in so far as t he a l l e g a t i on of accused number 1 is to t he e f f e ct t h at he d id not in any w ay force M i c h a el to hand o v er t he k n i fe to him. I h a ve a l so a g r e at d i f f i c u l ty on the p r o b a b i l i t i es of a c c e p t i ng M i c h a el A n d i m a 's evidence in so far as he a l l e g ed t h at he h ad b o u g ht t he k n i fe for R5 and actually h a n d ed it to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 to sell it for him. T h e se a f o r e s a id i s s u es a r e, h o w e v e r, not of any real significance in t h is c a s e. As f ar as t he n e xt i s s ue is c o n c e r n e d, namely d id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 s n a t ch t he s u n g l a s s es from t he face of t he d e c e a s ed or d id some o t h er p e r s on do s o, I h a ve no d i f f i c u l ty in a c c e p t i ng t he e v i d e n ce of t he t wo state w i t n e s s es on t h is i s s ue a nd I t h e r e f o re find t h at in fact accused n u m b er 1 w as t he p e r s on w ho snatched t he sunglasses from the face of t he d e c e a s e d. B ut e v en if I am w r o ng in this t h en at l e a st o ne of t he g r o up s n a t c h ed t he sunglasses from the face of t he d e c e a s ed and he d id so in t he c i r c u m s t a n c es from w h i ch it c an be i n f e r r ed t h at a c c u s ed numbers 1 and 2 w e re at l e a st p a r t i es to t h is s n a t c h i ng of t he g l a s s es from t he f a ce of t he d e c e a s e d. As to t he i s s ue - d id a c c u s ed number 1 hand the s u n g l a s s es to a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 or did w i t n e ss C l o e te hand it to a c c u s ed n u m b er 2, it a g a in is i m p o s s i b le to reject as not r e a s o n a b ly p o s s i b ly t r ue t he e v i d e n ce of accused n u m b er 2 on t h is a s p e c t. H o w e v e r, w h e t h er or not Cloete first t o ok p o s s e s s i on of t he g l a s s es or w h e t h er he n e v er t o ok p o s s e s s i on of t he g l a s s e s, are not important or s i g n i f i c a nt c o n s i d e r a t i o ns in c o m i ng to a c o n c l u s i on on the g u i lt of t he a c c u s ed in t h is m a t t e r. On t he fifth i s s u e, i.e. w as accused number 2 p r e s e nt w i th a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 a nd t he t wo state w i t n e s s es w h en t he g l a s s es w as s n a t c h ed from t he face of t he d e c e a s ed a nd w h en t he d e c e a s ed w as i n j u r ed by accused number 1, I h a ve no d o u b t, w h a t s o e v e r, t h at accused n u m b er 2 w as p r e s e nt at a ll r e l e v a nt t i m e s. H is e x p l a n a t i on w hy he suddenly m o v ed a w ay f r om t he g r o up and w e nt to the Post Office to l o ok for a n o t h er f r i e nd w i th w h om he normally m o v es around in t o wn is w h o l ly i m p r o b a b le and c l e a r ly a f a b r i c a t i o n. In t h is c o n n e c t i on he i n i t i a l ly at the p r e p a r a t o ry e x a m i n a t i on e x p l a i n ed t h at he did not k n ow anything about t he i n c i d e nt b e c a u se he h ad only a r r i v ed t h e re after the w h o le i n c i d e nt h ad t a k en p l a ce and the deceased had already b e en k i l l e d. In t h is C o u rt he said t h at the coloured p e r s on by t he n a me of S o o n, i.e. C l o e t e, ran towards him and handed t he g l a s s es to him. T h at is a l so t o t a l ly i m p r o b a b l e. But t h en he g o es on to say and h e re he improves on his o r i g i n al e x p l a n a t i on b e f o re t he m a g i s t r a t e, by saying t h at as he m o v ed t o w a r ds t he s c e ne a f t er r e c e i v i ng t he glasses from S o on he saw a g r o up of p e o p le standing a r o u n d, he saw a n e w s p a p er m o v i ng in t he a ir a nd he saw a m o v e m e nt of the n e w s p a p er as if it w as d r a wn b a ck from a c e r t a in p o s i t i o n. He did n ot w a nt to t e ll t he C o u rt at that stage of his t e s t i m o ny t h at he h ad a c t u a l ly seen t h is n e w s p a p er in the hand of a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, he w as v e ry e v a s i ve as to t h a t. T h en he t e l ls a s t o ry of h ow he w as shocked w h en he saw the b l o od spurting f r om t he n e ck of t he d e c e a s ed and t h at in a c t u al fact b e c a u se of t he s h o ck he r an away from the scene i m m e d i a t e l y. H e, h o w e v e r, t h en c o n t i n u es to tell the Court t h at he ran for a d i s t a n ce a nd t h e n, w h en he got to Pep S t o r e s, he d e c i d ed to go a nd b uy d r i n k i ng g l a s s es in a c c o r d a n ce w i th a r e q u e st or a m a n d a te from h is m o t h er or some other r e l a t i v e. A p e r s on w ho is so s h o c k ed t h at he d e c i d es to r un away and i m m e d i a t e ly a f t e r w a r ds in t he next few seconds or m i n u t es d e c i d es to w a lk i n to a shop to buy a glass or g l a s s es as if n o t h i ng h as h a p p e n e d, c a n n ot tell the Court that he ran away b e c a u se he w as s h o c k e d. It is obvious from t h a t, that his w h o le s t o ry is n ot o n ly i m p r o b a b le but c l e a r ly c o n c o c t e d. I h a ve no d i f f i c u l ty in finding t h at he w as at the s c e ne at a ll r e l e v a nt t i m e s. He saw w h at h a p p e n e d, the s n a t c h i ng of t he g l a s s e s, he saw t he stabbing and he ran a w a y, n ot b e c a u se he w as s h o c k ed b ut to avoid arrest and i m p l i c a t i on in t h e se c r i m e s. T he n e xt i s s u e, n u m b er 6, i s, did the accused n u m b er 1 c a r ry t he k n i fe in his hand after r e c e i v i ng it f r om w i t n e ss M i c h a el a nd b e f o re t he injury to t he d e c e a s ed or d id he k e ep t he k n i fe inside or partly inside his t r o u s e r s? On t h is p o i nt a c c u s ed n u m b er l's e v i d e n ce stands a l o n e. B o th a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 and the two state w i t n e s s es i n d i c a t ed t h at in f a ct a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, after h a v i ng r e c e i v ed t he k n i fe f r om M i c h a el t h at m o r n i n g, kept the k n i fe i n s i de h is t r o u s e r s, w h e t h er inside a p o c k et or just on t he i n s i de of h is t r o u s e r s. T he seventh point of d i s p u t e, i.e. d id a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 stab the deceased as testified, to by s t a te w i t n e s s es C l o e te and M i c h a el A n d i ma or did a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 o n ly f l i ck h is h a n ds slightly in a m o v e m e nt to i n d i c a te t h at t he d e c e a s ed m u st leave him a l o ne and/or w as t he d e c e a s ed p u s h ed by s o m e o ne else onto t he k n i fe or did a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 s t ab t he d e c e a s ed intentionally. T he s t o ry a b o ut the flicking of the hand in a s l i g ht m a n n er to i n d i c a te t h at t he deceased m u st leave him a l o ne a nd t h at t he d e c e a s ed t h en turned his head and w as a c c i d e n t a l ly i n j u r ed is t o t a l ly improbable and obviously a v e ry w e ak e f f o rt to m i s l e ad the C o u r t. As to the story t h at t he d e c e a s ed w as p u s h ed by someone else onto t he k n i f e, t he a c c u s ed d id n ot p e r s i st w i th that story in this C o u r t. T h is w a s, h o w e v e r, t he story w h i ch he told the m a g i s t r a te in h is e x p l a n a t i on of p l ea and that is w hy I m u s t, n e v e r t h e l e s s, c o n s i d er it e v en t h o u gh he did not p e r s i st w i th t h at s t o ry in t h is C o u r t. In t h is Court he even said t h at he h ad n e v er said s o m e t h i ng like this to t he m a g i s t r a t e. He h ad n e v er t o ld t he m a g i s t r a te as w as recorded as f o l l o w s: "Die o o r l e d e ne se b r il is d e ur iemand a f g e r u k, die o o r l e d e ne k om t oe na my en ek se dit is nie ek n i e. Ek het 'n o op m es in 'n k o e r a n t p a p i er in my hand g e h a d, iemand stamp o o r l e d e ne t oe v an a g t er en hy v al in d ie m e s ". He says he n e v er t o ld t he m a g i s t r a te that story - "Ek het "n oop m es in 'n k o e r a n t p a p i er en iemand stamp d ie o o r l e d e ne t oe v an a g t er en hy v al in d ie m e s ". N ow he even told this C o u rt t h at in a c t u al fact the p r o c e e d i n gs in t he m a g i s t r a t e 's c o u r t, b e f o re M a g i s t r a te H o r n, w as in E n g l i sh and not in A f r i k a a n s. W h en it w as pointed out to him by t he S t a te a d v o c a t e, Mr J a n u a r i e, that according to t he r e c o r d, t he m a t t er w as i n t e r p r e t ed into A f r i k a a ns from O v a m bo by a c e r t a in i n t e r p r e t er Ms B u n g a, he said t h at Ms B u n ga i n t e r p r e t ed on t he first d a y, that is the 28th O c t o b er 1 9 9 1, b ut d id n ot i n t e r p r et on the 13th N o v e m b er 1991 w h en he g a ve h is a f o r e s a id e x p l a n a t i on to the m a g i s t r a t e. It a l so t u r n ed o ut s u r p r i s i n g ly that the same i n t e r p r e t e r, Ms B u n g a, w as t he same p e r s on as the one w h o, a c c o r d i ng to t he a c c u s e d 's e a r l i er t e s t i m o ny in t h is C o u r t, w as his s i s t e r. He a l so t o ld t he Court in the c o u r se of his story on t he m e r i ts t h at w h en he reached home a f t er t he i n c i d e nt on t he d ay in q u e s t i on he felt bad and he a c t u a l ly asked t h is s i s t er of h i s, Ms B u n g a, to phone the p o l i ce so t h at t h ey c o u ld c o me and fetch him. He t e s t i f i ed in d e t a il how t he s i s t er h ad p h o n ed t he police on t h r ee o c c a s i o n s, t h at a f t e r n o on a nd e v e n i n g, but that the p o l i ce n e v er t u r n ed up u n t il 11 o'clock t h at evening w h en he w as a r r e s t e d. In t he c i r c u m s t a n c es the C o u rt t h o u g ht it just to c a ll t he p r e s i d i ng officer at the m a g i s t r a te c o u r t, Ms H o rn a nd to c a ll t he p e r s on w ho w as the i n t e r p r e t e r, a c c o r d i ng to t he r e c o r d s, Ms B u n g a. The m a g i s t r a t e, Ms H o r n, t e s t i f i ed t h at t he p r o c e e d i n gs on the 13th N o v e m b er w as in A f r i k a a ns b e c a u se no English i n t e r p r e t er w as a v a i l a b le a nd t h at in fact t he interpreter on t h at p a r t i c u l ar d a te w as Ms A. B u n g a. S he testified that she r e c o r d ed w h at t he i n t e r p r e t er i n t e r p r e t ed in A f r i k a a n s, as it a p p e a rs on t he r e c o rd of t he p r o c e e d i n g s. Ms B u n ga t h en w as called by the Court and she t e s t i f i ed t h at she k n ew accused number 1 as w e ll as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2, t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 and she lived for some t i me in t he s a me p l a c e, b ut she w as not his s i s t er in any s e n se of t he t e r m. S he a l so denied that she had e v er b e en r e q u e s t ed to c a ll t he p o l i ce on the day in q u e s t i on and she d e n i ed t h at she h ad e v er c a l l ed the police on t h at p a r t i c u l ar e v e n i n g. As to t he r e c o rd she confirmed t h at she w as in fact t he i n t e r p r e t er on the day w h en b o th a c c u s ed g a ve an e x p l a n a t i o n, that is on t he 13th N o v e m b er 1 9 9 1. S he t e s t i f i ed that she at t h at stage w as one of t he i n t e r p r e t e rs at t he m a g i s t r a te court i n t e r p r e t i ng f r om A f r i k a a ns to O s h i v a m bo and v i ce v e r sa and she c o u ld n ot i n t e r p r et in E n g l i s h. She confirmed t h a t, t h at is w hy t he p r o c e e d i n gs on t h at d ay w as recorded in A f r i k a a ns and she i n t e r p r e t ed f r om O s h i v a m bo to A f r i k a a ns and v i ce v e r s a. S he c o n f i r m ed t h at w h at w as recorded by the m a g i s t r a te w as w h at w as in f a ct said by t he accused. She d e n i ed e m p h a t i c a l ly t h at she h ad e v er p h o n ed the police at t he r e q u e st of a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 or at a l l. It is q u i te clear that a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 t r i ed to m i s l e ad t he C o u rt c o n t i n u o u s ly and t h r o u g h o ut his e v i d e n c e. He m a de a b ad i m p r e s s i on as a w i t n e ss a nd t h e re is no d i f f i c u l ty in f i n d i ng t h at he w as lying to t he C o u r t. As to t he a l l e g ed s o - c a l l ed flicking of his h a n d, the fact of t he m a t t er is t h at t he w o u nd inflicted on t he d e c e a s ed r e q u i r ed m o d e r a te f o r c e, it w as a stab w o u n d, it p e n e t r a t ed i n to t he b o dy of t he d e c e a s ed for 60 m i l l i m e t r e s. T h e re c an be no d o u bt t h at t he w o u nd w as not i n f l i c t ed a c c i d e n t a l ly b ut d e l i b e r a t e ly and as d e s c r i b ed by t he state w i t n e s s e s. T h e ir d e s c r i p t i on w as t h at accused n u m b er 1 r e m o v ed t he k n i fe f r om t he i n s i de of h is t r o u s e rs w h e re he k e pt it u n t il t h at m o m e n t, he s u d d e n ly t o ok it o ut and he p u s h ed it s t r a i g ht t o w a r ds t he n e ck or t he upper p a rt of t he b o dy of t he d e c e a s ed in a s t r i k i ng m o v e m e n t. As I h a ve i n d i c a t ed t he w o u nd is an i n c i s ed w o u nd and it w as d e s c r i b ed by Dr L i e b e n b e rg as a stab w o u nd and t he C o u rt has no d o u bt t h at in f a ct it is a stab w o u nd d i r e c t ly and d e l i b e r a t e ly i n f l i c t ed on t he d e c e a s ed by the a c c u s e d. T he i s s u e, did accused n u m b er 2 a s s o c i a te h i m s e lf w i th t he a c t i on of accused n u m b er 1 and t he p e r s on w ho s n a t c h ed t he s u n g l a s s es from the face of t he d e c e a s e d. I h a ve no d o u bt t h at n ot only w as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 p r e s e nt a ll t he t i m e, b ut t h at he w as one of the g r o up from t he b e g i n n i n g. He a s s i s t ed in c o n f u s i ng t he d e c e a s ed and he a s s i s t ed in t he t h e ft a nd the robbery by t a k i ng t he s u n g l a s s es w h i ch w e re s n a t c h ed from the d e c e a s ed i n to his p o s s e s s i on a nd by r u n n i ng away from the scene w i th t he s u n g l a s s es a f t er t he b r u t al s t a b b i n g. By k e e p i ng it he h e l p ed to m a ke it i m p o s s i b le for the d e c e a s ed to r e c o v er h is g l a s s e s. As I h a ve i n d i c a t ed the r e a s on for t he r u n n i ng a w ay w as n ot t h at he w as s h o c k e d, b ut p r o b a b ly t h at he had a g u i l ty c o n s c i e n c e, a k n o w l e d ge of h is a s s o c i a t i on and t he p a r t i c i p a t i on in at least t he v i o l e nt s n a t c h i ng of t he g l a s s e s. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 m a de a b ad i m p r e s s i on as a w i t n e s s. As to the c o r r e ct v e r d i ct t he S t a te c o n t e n d ed in a r g u m e nt t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 should be found g u i l ty of m u r d er f i r s t ly and secondly of r o b b e ry w i th a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es and t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 be found g u i l ty o n ly of r o b b e ry b ut not guilty of m u r d e r. Mr H i n d a, for the d e f e n c e, c o n c e d ed t h at it is i m p o s s i b le for h im to a r g ue t h at t he e v i d e n ce d o es not j u s t i fy t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 m u st be found g u i l ty of m u r d er a nd r o b b e r y. In a r g u m e n t, t h e r e f o r e, as far as t he v e r d i ct in r e g a rd to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 is c o n c e r n ed t h e re is no d i s p u te b e t w e en state and the d e f e n ce c o u n s e l. As far as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 is c o n c e r n ed Mr H i n da c o n t e n ds t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 c a n n ot be found g u i l ty of m u r d er b e c a u se t h at c h a r ge has not p r o v ed b e y o nd r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he d e f e n ce and the S t a te is t h e r e f o re ad i d em on t h is p o i nt a nd t he C o u rt has no d i f f i c u l ty in a c c e p t i ng t h at joint stand by state and d e f e n c e. It is o b v i o us to t he C o u rt t h at t he S t a te d id not p r o ve in t he c a se of a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 t he c h a r ge of m u r d e r. H o w e v e r, in t he c a se of a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 t he S t a te c o n t e n ds t h at he is guilty of r o b b e ry w i th a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es a nd t he d e f e n ce c o n t e n ds t h at he c an only be found g u i l ty on a c h a r ge of t h e ft in v i ew of t he fact t h at he r an off w i th w h at he should h a ve k n o wn w as a stolen p a ir of s u n g l a s s e s. T h e re is a l so t he p o s s i b i l i ty of c o n v i c t i ng a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 of t he c r i me of b e i ng an a c c e s s o ry a f t er t he fact to r o b b e r y, b e c a u se he a c t u a l ly a s s i s t ed at least a f t er t he r o b b e ry in r e m o v i ng t he stolen g o o ds from t he scene a nd in t h at w ay a t t e m p t ed to o b s t r u ct t he c o u r se of justice a nd a t t e m p t ed to a s s i st a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 a n d / or any o t h er p e r s on w ho a c t u a l ly r e m o v ed t he g l a s s es from t he d e c e a s e d. T h e re is a l so t he p o s s i b i l i ty in such a c a se t h at on t he c h a r ge of r o b b e ry t he a c c u s ed c an be found guilty of a s s a u lt or a s s a u lt w i th i n t e nt p l us t he c r i me of t h e f t. T h o se a re a ll c o m p e t e nt v e r d i c ts on a c h a r ge of r o b b e r y. I m u st n ow shortly d e al w i th t he law on t he i s s u es r a i s ed h e r e. A p e r s on c an be found g u i l ty in a c a se w h e re he h as a c t ed in t he e x e c u t i on of a c o m m on p u r p o se w i th a n o t h er a c c u s e d. T h is a s p e ct is m o s t ly r e l e v a nt to t he q u e s t i on of t he g u i lt of a c c u s ed n u m b er 2. I w i sh to r e f er in t h is c o n n e c t i on to t he c a se of S v S a f a t sa and O t h e r s, 1988(1) SA (AD) 868 at p.89 8, p a r a g r a ph A and B. B o t h a, J. A. in t h is d e c i s i on of t he A p p e l l a te D i v i s i on r e f e r r ed to c e r t a in d i c ta in o t h er c a s es a nd c o m m e n t ed as f o l l o w s: "In my o p i n i on t h e se r e m a r ks c o n s t i t u te o n ce a g a in a c l e ar r e c o g n i t i on of t he p r i n c i p le t h at in c a s es of c o m m on p u r p o se t he act of one p a r t i c i p a nt in c a u s i ng t he d e a th of the d e c e a s ed is i m p u t e d, as a m a t t er of l a w, to the o t h er p a r t i c i p a n t s. T he r e f e r e n ce to ' v o o r a f b e p l a n n i n g' is n ot s i g n i f i c a n t, for it is w e ll e s t a b l i s h ed t h at a c o m m on p u r p o se need n ot be d e r i v ed from an a n t e c e d e nt a g r e e m e n t, b ut c an arise on the spur of t he m o m e nt a nd c an be inferred from t he facts s u r r o u n d i ng t he active association w i th t he f u r t h e r a n ce of t he c o m m on d e s i g n ". I h a ve a l so d e a lt w i th t h is c a se and the subsequent c a se of S v M q e d e zi and O t h e r s, 1989(1) SA 687 and t he c a se of S v M o t a u nq a nd O t h e r s, 1990(4) SA 485 (A) in a r e c e nt j u d g m e nt in t he c a se of S v L i k i us A i k e le and 2 O t h e r s, a j u d g m e nt w h i ch w as d e l i v e r ed on t he 24th A p r il 1992 and n ot y et r e p o r t ed in t he L aw R e p o r t s. H o w e v e r, as far as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 is c o n c e r n ed t he C o u rt i n f e rs f r om t he c o n d u ct and the facts w i th w h i ch I h a ve a l r e a dy d e a l t, t h at e v en if no antecedent a g r e e m e nt b e t w e en h im and a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 a n d / or the o t h er state w i t n e s s es w e re p r o v e d, t h en at least he joined in on t he spur of t he m o m e n t, by a s s o c i a t i ng himself w i th the v i o l e nt s n a t c h i ng of t he g l a s s es a nd by a s s i s t i ng in the act of d e p r i v i ng t he d e c e a s ed of h is p r o p e r t y. T h e re is a n o t h er a s p e ct on t he c r i me of robbery w h i ch n e e ds some c o n s i d e r a t i o n. T r a d i t i o n a l ly the c o u r ts have r e g a r d ed r o b b e ry to be c o m m i t t ed w h en a p e r s on uses v i o l e n ce to s u b d ue t he v i c t im in o r d er to obtain the g o o d s. It w as g e n e r a l ly a c c e p t ed at one stage that w h en g o o ds a re s t o l en or t a k en f r om a p e r s on and v i o l e n ce is s u b s e q u e n t ly s u p p l i e d, t h at t h at w o u ld not in t he n o r m al c o u r se c o n s t i t u te t he c r i me of r o b b e r y, but only the c r i me of t h e ft a nd a s s a u l t. H o w e v e r, in t he a u t h o r i t a t i ve j u d g m e nt in t he c a se of S v Y o l e l o. 1981(1) SA 1002 (A) at p. 1015 G - H, t he l e a r n ed judges of a p p e al stated the p o s i t i on to be as f o l l o w s: "Ek m e en d e r h a l we dat roof gepleeg kan w o rd o ok i n d i en g e w e ld v o lg op die v o l t o o i i ng v an d i e f s t al in 'n j u r i d i e se sin. In elke geval sal n a g e g a an m o et w o rd of d a ar in d ie lig v an al die o m s t a n d i g h e d e, en v e r al d ie t yd en p l ek v an die h a n d e l i n g e, so 'n n o ue v e r b a nd t u s s en d ie d i e f s t al en d ie g e w e l d p l e g i ng b e s t a an d at d ie as a a n e e n s k a k e l e n de k o m p o n e n te v an w e s e n t l ik e en g e d r a g i ng b e s k ou kan w o r d. Die v r a ag of d ie o p s et v an d ie d a d er by d ie t o e d i e n i ng v an geweld g e r ig m o et w e es op b e h o ud v an die besit v an of b e h e er o or d ie g o ed w at d ie d i ef reeds verkry het - in t e e n s t e l l i ng t ot b l o te o n t v l u g t i ng - kom nie in d ie o n d e r h a w i ge g e v al t er s p r a ke n i e. D it is nodig om te m e ld dat h o e w el ek h i e r bo g e r i e f l i k h e i d s h a l we m e e s t al slegs na g e w e l d p l e g i ng v e r w ys h e t, w at gese is ook v an t o e p a s s i ng is op 'n d r e i g e m e nt v an geweld insoverre dit 'n e l e m e nt v an r o of k an w e e s ". E v en if in t h is c a se the m e re snatching of t he g l a s s es d id n ot c o n s t i t u te robbery in i t s e l f, then the v i o l e n ce u s e d, n a m e ly t he stabbing of t he d e c e a s e d, w h en he t r i ed to r e c o v er p o s s e s s i on of his g l a s s e s, c o n s t i t u t es v i o l e n ce w h i ch is so n a r r o w ly c o n n e c t ed to t he t a k i ng t h at it is in a ny c a se s u f f i c i e nt to c o n s t i t u te t he c r i me of r o b b e r y. On t h at b a s is a l o ne the c r i me of r o b b e ry has b e en p r o v ed e v en t h o u gh t he g l a s s es w as first snatched from t he d e c e a s ed a nd he w as s t a b b ed s u b s e q u e n t l y. T h e re i s, h o w e v e r, a n o t h er l e g al q u e s t i on w h i ch needs c o n s i d e r a t i o n. T r a d i t i o n a l l y, t he s n a t c h i ng of an item from a p e r s on has b e en r e g a r d ed by o ur c o u r ts n ot as robbery b ut as t h e f t. T h at is on t he b a s is t h at t he s n a t c h i ng itself w as held not to i n v o l ve v i o l e n ce to s u b d ue t he v i c t im in order to o b t a in the h a n d i ng o v er of h is p r o p e r t y. H o w e v e r, in several c a s es in r e c e nt t i m e s, c o u r ts in S o u th A f r i ca have found that the a c t u al s n a t c h i ng of a h a n d b ag from somebody in the street a m o u n ts to r o b b e ry a nd n ot m e r e ly t h e f t, b e c a u se it is v i o l e n ce d i r e c t ed to o v e r c o me h is p o t e n t i al r e s i s t a n ce to the t a k i n g. T h is l i ne of c a s es s t a r t ed actually w i th some c o m m e nt by R u m p f f, C. J. of t he A p p e l l a te D i v i s i on of the S u p r e me C o u rt of S o u th A f r i ca in t he c a se of S v M o g a l a, 1978(2) SA 412 (A) at 4 1 5H to 4 1 6 A, w h e re he stated: "Ek v i nd d it m o e i l ik om te v e r s t a an w a a r om 'n p e r s o on w at m et g e w e ld 'n handsak uit 'n v r ou se h a nd r u k, n ie g e w e ld p l e eg nie (al hoef dit gering te w e e s) m et d ie d o el om die handsak te o n t n e e m. D it s k yn my h a a r k l o w e ry te w e es om te se dat die g e w e ld ' t o e v a l l i g' i s, of d at die geweld d ie slagoffer nie in 'n t o e s t a nd v an o n m ag p l a as n i e. Die g r y p er w e et g o ed d at hy a l l e en d e ur 'n onverwagte v i n n i ge en h a r de r uk d ie h a n d s ak k an k r y. Hy w e et dat sy s l a g o f f er w e e r s t a nd sou b i ed i n d i en hy dit gewoonweg sou w ou v a t. D a a r om m o et hy d ie slagoffer se greep en v e r d e re w e e r s t a nd by v o o r b a at u i t s k a k el deur 1 n v i n n i ge h a n d e l i ng w at u it g e w e ld b e s t a a n. Die v e r s k il t u s s en die s a k k e r o l l er en d ie g r y p d i ef le juis d a a r in dat e e r s g e n o e m de m et b e h e n d i g h e id my b e u rs of p o r t e f e u l je v e r k r y, t e r w yl d ie g r y p d i ef a l l e en m et geweld kan slaag. H o e w el by d ie g r yp v an ' n h a n d s ak g e w o o n l ik die o n t n e m i ng v an d ie h a n d s ak saam m et die pleeg v an geweld g a a n, is d ie g e w e ld 'n sine qua non vir die g e v o l g ". T h is a p p r o a ch w as followed, for i n s t a n c e, in a d e c i s i on by t he N a t al P r o v i n c i al Division in the c a se of S v S i t h o l e, 1 9 8 1 ( 1) SA (NPD) 1186 at 1 1 8 7. T h is a p p r o a ch w as a l so f o l l o w ed in several other c a s es since in t he 8 0 ' s. In t he S v M o f o k e n g, 1982(4) (TPD) 147 a judgment of t wo j u d g e s, t he r e a s o n i ng appears from p a r a g r a p hs A -C at p . 1 5 0. T he same a p p r o a ch w as followed in the c a se S v W i t b o o i, 1 9 8 4 ( 1) SA (CPD) 242 by t wo judges of t h at c o u r t. I h a ve no doubt that the N a m i b i an C o u rt should f o l l ow t he a p p r o a ch a p p l i ed in the a f o r e s a id c a s e s, n a m e ly t h at w h e re an a r t i c le is snatched from a p e r s o n, such as a h a n d b ag or g l a s s es or w h a t e v er it i s, t he e l e m e nt of v i o l e n ce r e q u i r ed for t he c r i me of robbery is a l r e a dy p r e s e nt a nd it is n ot r e q u i r ed t h at there m u st be v i o l e n ce in any o t h er f o rm at t he t i me of t he t a k i n g. W h en t he said approach is a p p l i ed to t he p r e s e nt f a c t s, it f o l l o ws t h at the c r i me of robbery w as a l r e a dy c o m m i t t ed at t he m o m e nt w h en the g l a s s es w e re snatched f r om t he f a ce of t he d e c e a s e d. In any c a se it w as c e r t a i n ly c o m m i t t ed at t he t i me w h en the deceased t r i ed to get his p r o p e r ty b a ck a nd w h en he w as stabbed and stabbed to d e a t h. I h a ve c o n s i d e r ed all the e v i d e n c e, t he p r o b a b i l i t i es a nd t he c r e d i b i l i ty of the w i t n e s s es and h a ve a p p l i ed t he l e g al p r i n c i p l es of our law to the f a c t s. In t he r e s u lt I h a ve c o me to t he c o n c l u s i on t h at - A C C U S ED N U M B ER 1 is G U I L TY of t he C R I ME OF M U R D ER f i r s t ly and s e c o n d ly of R O B B E RY w i th A G G R A V A T I NG C I R C U M S T A N C E S. I find A C C U S ED N U M B ER 2 N OT G U I L TY of t he C R I ME OF M U R D ER b ut G U I L TY on the C H A R GE of R O B B E RY w i th A G G R A V A T I NG C I R C U M S T A N C E S. F or t he S t a t e: A d v. H. C. J a n u a r ie F or t he a c c u s e d: A d v. G. Hinda I n s t r u c t ed by the L e g al A id B o a rd IN T HE HIGH C O U RT OF NAMIBIA In t he m a t t er b e t w e en THE STATE v e r s us 1. P A U L US A L E X A N D ER 2. N G H I L I FA G A B R I EL CORAM: O'LINN, J. H e a rd o n: 1992.05.26,27 and 29 D e l i v e r ed o n: 1992.05.29 S E N T E N CE O'LINN, J. : It is c e r t a i n ly a l w a ys one of t he m o st d i f f i c u lt t a s ks for c o u r ts to impose a s e n t e n ce in t he c a se of serious c r i m es like t he p r e s e n t. It is t r i te l aw t h at w h en imposing sentence t he C o u rt c o n s i d e rs t he p e r s on of t he a c c u s e d, t he n a t u re of t he c r i me c o m m i t t ed a nd t he i n t e r e st of t he c o m m u n i t y. O b v i o u s ly in m o st c a s es t h o se t h r ee c o n s i d e r a t i o ns are i n t e r r e l a t ed and c a n n ot be m a r k ed off in s e p a r a te and c l e ar cut c o m p a r t m e n t s. T he facts of t he c a s es a g a i n st t he t wo a c c u s ed a p p e ar f r om t he C o u r t 's judgment on c o n v i c t i o n. It is n ot n e c e s s a ry to r e p e at t h o se f a c t s. H o w e v e r, c e r t a in f e a t u r es of t he c r i m es c o m m i t t ed m u st be u n d e r l i n e d. T he c r i m es of t h e f t, r o b b e ry a nd m u r d er h a ve c e r t a i n ly i n c r e a s ed m a r k e d ly in t he l a st f ew y e a r s. T o d ay it is not an e x c e p t i on to h e ar of p e o p le w h o se g o o ds are s t o l e n, g a n gs w a lk t he s t r e e ts a nd m o ve i n to t he shops to r ob p e o p le and n ow we e v en h a ve t he c a se w h e re a p e r s on w as m u r d e r ed in d a y l i g ht in t he m a in s t r e et of W i n d h o e k. T he fact t h at t h is w as d o ne in b r o ad d a y l i g ht in t he c e n t re of t o wn shows t h at the a c c u s ed p e r s o ns n ot o n ly c o m m i t t ed c o w a r d ly and b r u t al a c t s, b ut w e re c o n t e m p t u o us of t he forces of law a nd o r d e r. T h is is n ot a c a se w h e re food w as s t o l en or e v en w h e re a p e r s on w as r o b b ed of i t e ms such as food and w h e re t he e x p l a n a t i on is t h at t he a c c u s ed w e re o ut of w o rk and r e q u i r i ng food to s u r v i ve or e v en m o n ey to s u r v i ve or to m a i n t a in t h e ir d e p e n d a n ts or a n y t h i ng of t he s o r t. T he c r i me h e re starts off w i th t he a c c u s ed r o a m i ng a r o u nd in t he s t r e e ts of W i n d h o e k. T h ey snatched a m i n or i t em s u ch as t he s u n g l a s s es off t he v i c t i m 's face a nd t h e n, w h en t he v i c t im w as n ot s a t i s f i ed and a t t e m p t ed to r e c o v er h is p r o p e r t y, he w as a s s a u l t e d, k i l l ed in a b r u t al and c o w a r d ly f a s h i o n. T he c r i m es c o m m i t t ed a re v e ry g r a ve c r i m e s. T he r o b b e ry w as c o m m i t t ed in c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i ch are r e g a r d ed in law as a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es b e c a u se a d a n g e r o us w e a p on w as i n v o l v e d. As far as a c c u s ed n u m b er 1's p e r s on is c o n c e r n ed it a p p e a rs t h at he r e a c h ed only standard 5 at s c h o o l. N e v e r t h e l e s s, he d id n ot c o m m it t he c r i me s o m e w h e re in an a r ea w h e re o ne w o u ld look p e r h a ps on such a c r i me w i th m o re s y m p a t h y. T h is p e r s o n, a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, h as b e en in t he c i ty of W i n d h o ek a p p a r e n t ly for a c o n s i d e r a b le t i m e. He m u st be a w a re of t he a p p e a ls from t he l e a d e rs of t he c o m m u n i t y, from t he P r e s i d e nt of N a m i b ia r i g ht d o wn to t he m i n i s t e r s, t he r e p e a t ed w a r n i n gs of t he c o u r ts of l a w, c r i es of d e s p e r a t i on from m a ny s o u r c es in t he c o m m u n i t y. He c a n n ot be i g n o r a nt of a ll t h a t. T he a c c u s ed f u r t h e r m o re d id n ot t a ke t he C o u rt i n to h is c o n f i d e n ce d u r i ng t he t r i al s t a ge or at a ny s t a g e. He s t a r t ed off w i th an e x p l a n a t i on in t he m a g i s t r a t e 's c o u rt w h i ch w as a b l a t a nt l i e. In t h is C o u rt he w a s t ed t he C o u r t 's t i me w i th e x p l a n a t i o ns a nd f u r t h er a l l e g a t i o ns w h i ch a m o u n t ed to m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s. It w as n e c e s s a ry for t he C o u rt to c a ll t he m a g i s t r a t e, to c a ll a p e r s on n a m ed by t he a c c u s ed as his sister to g i ve e v i d e n ce a nd b o th r e f u t ed some of h is l i es h e re in C o u r t. T h o se lies I h a ve a l r e a dy d e a lt w i th in t he judgment on t he m e r i t s. B ut n ow t he a c c u s ed c a me f o r w a rd at the s e n t e n ce s t a ge and g a ve e v i d e n ce u n d er o a th o n ce m o r e. The C o u rt w as just b e g i n n i ng to be m o re s y m p a t h e t ic to the a c c u s ed b e c a u se at least he c a me f o r w a rd to say u n d er o a th t h at he w as s o r ry t h at he had w a s t ed t he t i me of t he C o u r t, t he m a g i s t r a t e, t he i n t e r p r e t er and o t h er w i t n e s s es by his m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s. T h at w as a v e ry g o od b e g i n n i ng for a p e r s on s h o w i ng r e m o r se and c o n t r i t i o n. H o w e v e r, o ne of t he a s p e c ts w h i ch t he C o u rt w o u ld h a ve t a k en i n to c o n s i d e r a t i on w as t he fact t h at he had no o p p o r t u n i ty to a t t e nd school if t h at w as t he f a c t. T he C o u r t, t h e r e f o r e, p e r t i n e n t ly p ut t he q u e s t i on d u r i ng t he s e n t e n ce s t a ge to t he a c c u s ed w h e t h er he h ad a t t e n d ed a school at a ll d u r i ng h is l i f e t i me and he said c l e a r ly and e m p h a t i c a l ly - no he h as n e v er a t t e n d ed s c h o o l. F o r t u n a t e ly Mr J a n u a r i e, t he S t a te a d v o c a t e, had a r e c o rd of some of the p a r t i c u l a rs of the a c c u s ed and Mr J a n u a r ie t h en p ut to t he a c c u s ed t h at he h ad t o ld t he p o l i ce t h at he had p a s s ed standard 5. H is a n s w er to t h at w as string of e v a s i o n s, c o n t r a d i c t i o ns a nd f u r t h er l i e s. In t h at w ay his b o na fides w e re d e s t r o y ed by h i m s e lf a nd t he w e i g ht w h i ch I w o u ld have g i v en to a p e r s on in his p o s i t i on w ho showed s o r r ow and c o n t r i t i on w as n ot o n ly d i m i n i s h ed b ut a l so c o m p l e t e ly e l i m i n a t e d. He a l so c o n t i n u ed w i th a story t h at in a c t u al fact the d e c e a s ed h ad b e en s t a b b ed or injured a c c i d e n t a l l y. T he C o u rt a l r e a dy found on t he m e r i ts for good r e a s on t h at t h at e x p l a n a t i on w as a l i e. T he C o u rt h as no r e a s on n o w, e v en if it w as in a p o s i t i on to do s o, to c h a n ge t h at f i n d i n g. He a l so c o n t i n u ed w i th t he lie t h at he d o es not k n ow w ho s n a t c h ed t he s u n g l a s s es from t he d e c e a s e d 's f a c e. It is q u i te c l e ar t h at if he d id not snatch t he g l a s s es h i m s e l f, t h en he m u st be w e ll a w a re of p r e c i s e ly w ho of his g r o up of f r i e n ds s n a t c h ed t he g l a s s e s. So t h e re a g a i n, he p e r s i s t ed in h is l i e s. It h as a l so b e en b r o u g ht to t he C o u r t 's a t t e n t i on by t he a c c u s ed a nd h is c o u n s el t h at t he r e l a t i v es of the d e c e a s ed h ad d e m a n d ed a p a y m e nt of R3 500 and 15 head of c a t t le as d a m a g es for t he k i l l i ng of t h e ir d e c e a s ed r e l a t i v e. A c c u s ed a l so said t h at a c c o r d i ng to a s i s t er of his t h is a m o u nt h as b e en p a id and t he c a t t le d e l i v e r ed to the family of t he d e c e a s e d. H o w e v e r, t he C o u rt has no proof t h at t h at h as h a p p e n ed a nd a p r o b l em in a c a se like t h at is firstly o ne of f a c t. U n l e ss t he C o u rt h o l ds a further e n q u i ry it c a n n ot e s t a b l i sh w h e t h er in fact such m o n i es w e re p a id or s u ch c a t t le w e re h a n d ed o v e r. If t h is w as a w e i g h ty or a v e ry r e l e v a nt f a c t or t h en t he C o u rt w o u ld have c a l l ed f u r t h er w i t n e s s e s, b ut it s e e ms to me t h at in c a s es w h e re p e o p le o r i g i n a t i ng f r om c e r t a in s o - c a l l ed t r i b al a r e as a re i n v o l v ed and w h e re in t he c a se of m u r d e r, an a c c u s ed p e r s on or an a c c u s ed p e r s o n s' family are r e q u i r ed to m a ke a m e n ds by p a y i ng c e r t a in d a m a g es to t he family of t he v i c t i m, t h en t h at t y pe of a r r a n g e m e nt m u st of n e c e s s i ty r e m a in p r i m a r i ly a c i v il m a t t e r. It is in e s s e n ce t he settling of a c i v il c l a im b e t w e en f a m i l i es a nd t h at c a n n ot r e a l ly e f f e ct w h at s e n t e n ce a c o u rt m u st i m p o se w h en an accused is found g u i l ty in t h is c o u rt of t he m o st serious c r i m e s. In some c a s e s, p a r t i c u l a r ly w h e re t he c r i m es a re n ot t h at s e r i o u s, it m ay be t h at a c o u rt in a p p r o p r i a te c i r c u m s t a n c e s, w i ll g i ve some w e i g ht to t he f a c t, if t h at fact is p r o v e d, t h at a m e n ds h a ve b e en m a de by t he family of an a c c u s ed to t he v i c t im of an a c c u s ed by t he p a y m e nt of a sum of m o n ey a n d / or t he d e l i v e ry of c a t t l e. B ut at b e st t h at c o u ld be o n ly a m i n or c o n s i d e r a t i on c o n s i d e r i ng t he s e n t e n ce w h i ch a c o u rt m u st i m p o s e. E v i d e n ce h as f u r t h er b e en p ut b e f o re t h is C o u rt t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w as p r e v i o u s ly s e n t e n c ed for the c r i me of t h e f t. T h at in i t s e lf w as n ot a v e ry serious c r i me b e c a u se t he v a l ue of t he s t o l en a r t i c le w as s m a l l. B ut at t he same t i me or r e l a t ed to t h a t, he w as c o n v i c t ed of a c r i me of m a l i c i o us i n j u ry to p r o p e r t y, d o i ng d a m a ge to a p o l i ce v an in w h i ch he w as a p p a r e n t ly c o n v e y e d. It is a l so c o m m on c a u se t h at t he p r e s e nt c r i me w as c o m m i t t ed by h im w h i l st he w as a l r e a dy o ut on p a r o l e. N ow w h en a p e r s on is out on p a r o le t h at is an o p p o r t u n i ty g i v en to h im by t he a u t h o r i t i es to go out a nd not s e r ve his full s e n t e n c e, on the u n d e r s t a n d i ng that he w i ll b e h a ve h i m s e lf a nd p r o v i de signs of b e i ng a r e s p o n s i b le m e m b er of the c o m m u n i t y. He a l so failed to fulfil t h is t r u st w h i ch the a u t h o r i t i es and the c o m m u n i ty p ut in him by l e t t i ng h im out on p a r o l e. As far as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 is c o n c e r n ed he is said to be o n ly 18 y e a rs of a g e. C e r t a i n ly this w o u ld in m o st c a s es be s e en as a f a c t or w h i ch counts in favour of an a c c u s ed p e r s o n. U n f o r t u n a t e ly it seems n o w a d a ys t h at so m a ny c r i m es a re c o m m i t t ed by p e r s o ns of a y o u t h f ul age m o re or less 17 to 20 y e a rs of age a nd a l t h o u gh I m u st g i ve t h is f a c t or s o me w e i g ht in favour of a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 as c o m p a r ed to a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, it c a n n ot be t a k en out of p r o p o r t i o n. T h en it h as b e en a r g u ed by Mr H i n da and it is a fact c o n c e d ed by t he S t a te t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 c e r t a i n ly p l a y ed a l e s s er r o le t h an a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, t he older m a n. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 h as b e en a c q u i t t ed of t he c r i me of m u r d er b e c a u se h is p a r t i c i p a t i on in t he m u r d er could not be p r o v ed b e y o nd r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he m u r d er is one of the e l e m e n ts a l so of t he r o b b e ry in t he c a se of accused n u m b er 1, b ut it is c l e ar t h at t he m u r d er c a n n ot be held against a c c u s ed n u m b er 2, w h en c o n s i d e r i ng his s e n t e n ce on the c r i me of r o b b e r y. H o w e v e r, i f, as I h a ve found, the m e re g r a b b i ng of t he s p e c t a c l es in a v i o l e nt m o v e m e nt already c o n s t i t u t ed t he c r i me of r o b b e ry t h en one can say that at least as to t h at f o rm of r o b b e ry his role w as not less t h an t he one w ho a c t u a l ly s n a t c h ed the g l a s s es b e c a u se it is o b v i o us w h at t he m o d us o p e r a n di w a s. The one g r a bs the item of t he v i c t im and it is p a s s ed on to one or m o re of the o t h er p e o p le in t he g r o up s t a n d i ng a r o u nd or r u n n i ng a r o u nd so as to c o n f u se t he v i c t im and so as to m a ke it m o re d i f f i c u lt for t he v i c t im to t ry and r e c o v er his p r o p e r t y. F u r t h e r m o re a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 g a ve no a s s i s t a n ce to the d e c e a s e d. He ran a w ay f r om t he s c e ne and he w as n ot shocked or s o r r y, n ot t h en or t o d a y, b e c a u se on h is o wn e v i d e n ce a l t h o u gh he c o n t e n d ed t h at he w as v e ry s h o c k e d, on his own e v i d e n ce a f t er he h ad r un s o me d i s t a n ce from t he scene of the c r i me he c a l l o u s ly w a l k ed i n to a shop to go and buy g l a s s es in a c c o r d a n ce w i th a r e q u e st or i n s t r u c t i o ns for some r e l a t i ve of h i s. He a l so d id n ot c o me i n to t he w i t n e s s - b ox to g i ve e v i d e n ce t h at he r e g r e t t ed h is a c t s. W h at he did t h r o u g h o ut w as to lie to t he C o u rt e x c e pt in t h o se i n s t a n c es w h e re the C o u rt found t h at t he e v i d e n ce of a c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1 and 2 c o u ld be r e a s o n a b ly p o s s i b ly t r u e. T h o se e x c e p t i o ns I h a ve c l e a r ly stated in t he j u d g m e nt on c o n v i c t i o n. In t he l i g ht of t he i n c r e a se in t h is t y pe of c r i m e, t he s e n t e n c es of t h is C o u rt m u st be such t h at it w i ll p l ay s o me r o l e, h o w e v er s m a l l, in d e t e r r i ng the a c c u s ed or p e r s o ns in t he p o s i t i on of t he a c c u s ed to c o m m it t h is t y pe of c r i m e. B e f o re t he N a m i b i an c o n s t i t u t i on the m u r d er c o m m i t t ed by a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w o u ld h a ve b e en r e g a r d ed as one w i t h o ut a ny e x t e n u a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es and the d e a th s e n t e n ce w o u ld h a ve b e en i m p e r a t i v e. A c o u rt a l so in a c a se of r o b b e ry w i th a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es w as entitled to i m p o se t he d e a th s e n t e n ce b ut w as not c o m p e l l ed to do s o. In G r e at B r i t a i n, w h en t he d e a th s e n t e n ce w as a b o l i s h e d, t he s t a t u te m a de it c o m p u l s o ry to s e n t e n ce a p e r s on to life i m p r i s o n m e nt in t he p l a ce or in lieu of t he sentence of d e a t h. U n d er t he p r e- t * i n d e p e n d e n ce d i s p e n s a t i o n, a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w o u ld h a ve b e en s e n t e n c ed to d e a t h. U n d er t he p r e s e nt d i s p e n s a t i o n, t he o n ly r e a l i s t ic p u n i s h m e nt for a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 is l i fe i m p r i s o n m e nt on the c h a r ge of m u r d e r. IN T HE R E S U L T, t he following s e n t e n c es are i m p o s e d: A C C U S ED N U M B ER 1 on the c h a r ge of m u r d e r, L I FE I M P R I S O N M E N T. In t he c a se of R O B B E RY w i th a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c e s, 15 ( F I F T E E N) Y E A RS I M P R I S O N M E N T. T he sentence of r o b b e ry w i ll r un c o n c u r r e n t ly w i th t he i n d e t e r m i n a te s e n t e n ce of l i fe i m p r i s o n m e n t. I w a nt to m a ke it c l e ar i m m e d i a t e ly t h at t he e x e c u t i ve has a right and a d u ty to c o n s i d er w h en a p e r s on s e n t e n c ed to life i m p r i s o n m e nt is allowed o ut on p a r o le or o t h e r w i se and it w i ll d e p e nd inter a l ia on t he c o n d u ct of t he a c c u s ed h ow long he w i ll be in p r i s o n. As far as A C C U S ED N U M B ER 2 is c o n c e r n ed t he s e n t e n ce in h is c a se on t he c h a r ge of r o b b e ry w i th a g g r a v a t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c e s, is as f o l l o w s: T EN (10) Y E A RS I M P R I S O N M E N T, five (5) y e a rs of w h i ch a re suspended for five (5) y e a rs on c o n d i t i on t h at t he a c c u s ed is not c o n v i c t ed of the c r i m e s, r o b b e ry or t h e ft or any crime i n v o l v i ng v i o l e n ce for w h i ch t he a c c u s ed is sentenced to i m p r i s o n m e nt w i t h o ut t he o p t i on of a fine and w h i ch is c o m m i t t ed d u r i ng t he p e r i od of s u s p e n s i o n.