S v Maasdorp and Another (CC 84 of 1992) [1992] NAHC 3 (5 June 1992)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA case no cc.84/92 In t he m a t t er b e t w e en T HE S T A TE v e r s us 1. W I L LI N O R B ET MAASDORP 2. W I L L I AM A L F R ED ABRAHAM P H I L L I PS CORAM: O'LINN, J. H e a rd o n: 1992.06.04 and 05 D e l i v e r ed o n: 1 9 9 2 . 0 6 . 05 J U D G M E NT O ' L I N N, J.: A c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1, 2 and 3 a p p e a r ed on c h a r g es of d e a l i ng in d i a m o n d s, a l t e r n a t i v e ly on a c h a r ge of p o s s e s s i on of d i a m o n d s. A c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1 a nd 2 p l e a d ed g u i l ty to t he m a in c h a r ge a nd a c c u s ed n u m b er 3 p l e a d ed n ot g u i l ty to b o th t he m a in and a l t e r n a t i ve c h a r g e. H e re I s h o u ld h a ve m e n t i o n ed t h at a c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1 a nd 2 a l so p l e a d ed n ot g u i l ty to t he a l t e r n a t i ve c h a r g e. In v i ew of t he p l ea of a c c u s ed n u m b er 3 t h e re w i ll be a s e p a r a t i on of t r i a ls and he w as allowed to stand d o wn u n t il h is c a se c an be d e a lt w i t h. As far as a c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1 and 2 are c o n c e r n ed t h ey h a ve n ot o n ly p l e a d ed guilty but submitted a w r i t t en s t a t e m e nt in t e r ms of s e c t i on 112(2) of A ct 51 of 1977 s e t t i ng o ut t he b a s is of t h e ir p l ea of g u i l t y. I am s a t i s f i ed t h at t h ey n ot only admit all t he e s s e n t i al a l l e g a t i o ns of t he m a in c h a r ge b ut that they b o th i n t e n d ed to p l e ad g u i l ty to t he m a in c h a r g e. IN T HE R E S U LT I find a c c u s ed n u m b e rs 1 and 2 guilty of t he m a in c h a r g e, i.e. in t h at on or about the 30th June 1991 a nd at or n e ar K h o m a s d al 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 b o u g ht or r e c e i v ed 43 rough or u n c ut d i a m o n ds w i th t he m a ss of 72.42 c a r a ts and the v a l ue of R76 5 0 3 . 0 0. IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF NAMIBIA case no . In t he m a t t er b e t w e en T HE S T A TE v e r s us 1. W I L LI N O R B ET MAASDORP 2. W I L L I AM A L F R ED ABRAHAM PHILLIPS CORAM: O ' L I N N, JUDGE H e a rd o n: 1992.06.04 and 05 D e l i v e r ed o n: 1992.06.05 S E N T E N CE O ' L I N N, J.: It is t r i te law t h at t he C o u rt m u st c o n s i d er t he p e r s on a nd p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es of the 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 and the i n t e r e st of s o c i e t y. T h e se t h r ee b a s ic c o n s i d e r a t i o ns or f a c t o rs a re m o s t ly i n t e r r e l a t e d. As to t he p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es of t he a c c u s e d, Mr M a r i t z, c o u n s el for a c c u s ed number 1, set out all t he p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es p e r t a i n i ng to accused in a v i va v o ce s t a t e m e nt to t he C o u r t. Mr J a n u a r i e, c o u n s el for t he s t a t e, w h en a s k ed by t he C o u rt w h e t h er t he state a c c e p ts t h at s t a t e m e nt a nd t h o se f a c ts and c i r c u m s t a n c es as p ut forward by c o u n s el for a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, stated t h at t he state a c c e p t ed t he f a c ts and c i r c u m s t a n c es so set o u t. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w a s, h o w e v e r, not c a l l ed to t e s t i fy on a ny a s p e ct of m i t i g a t i on w h a t s o e v e r. A f t er t he s t a te h ad c a l l ed t he a s s i s t a n t - s e r g e a nt Dawid to give e v i d e n ce on t he q u e s t i on of s e n t e n c e, c o u n s el for a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w as a g a in i n v i t ed by t he C o u rt to reconsider the c a l l i ng or n ot of t he a c c u s ed on t he q u e s t i on of sentence in c a se a n y t h i ng s t a t ed by t he p o l i ce w i t n e ss took him by s u r p r i s e. H o w e v e r, c o u n s el for a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 informed t he C o u rt in r e s p o n se to t h is i n v i t a t i on t h at his i n s t r u c t i o ns are t h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w o u ld not t e s t i f y. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 w as in fact c a l l ed by his c o u n s e l, Mr H i n d a, to p l a ce c e r t a in facts p e r t a i n i ng to h is p e r s on a nd p e r s o n al c i r c u m s t a n c es before the C o u r t. T h at c o n c l u d ed t he e v i d e n ce as to sentence put b e f o re t he C o u rt at t he s t a ge w h en s e n t e n ce h ad to be c o n s i d e r e d. O b v i o u s ly a ll t he f a c ts w h i ch b o th a c c u s ed a d m i t t ed at the stage w h en t h ey p r e s e n t ed t h e ir e x p l a n a t i on of t h e ir p l e as of g u i l ty are b e f o re C o u rt a nd it is n ot n e c e s s a ry to refer to t he facts a d m i t t ed by b o th a c c u s ed in t he c o u r se of t h at e x p l a n a t i on of t h e ir p l e a s. I m u st a l so d r aw a t t e n t i on to the fact t h at w h en a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 w as called by his c o u n s el to t e s t i fy at t he s e n t e n ce s t a g e, c o u n s el for accused n u m b er 1 a s k ed h im w h e t h er or not t he e x p l a n a t i on of p l ea by a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 h ad b e en p ut to him in c o n s u l t a t i on and w h e t h er he a g r e ed t h at t h at v e r s i on g i v en by a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 w as c o r r e c t. He c o n c e d ed t h at t h at v e r s i on w as c o r r e c t. So it m e a ns t h en t h at t h e re is a l so the t e s t i m o ny by a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 w h i ch c o n f i r m e d, as far as he is c o n c e r n e d, w h at a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 h ad said in his w r i t t en e x p l a n a t i on of p l e a. I h a ve w e i g h ed all t he e v i d e n ce and all t he submissions m a de by c o u n s el v e ry c a r e f u l l y. As far as t he a p p l i c a b le l aw is c o n c e r n e d, p a r t i c u l a r ly the law relating to c a s es w h e re t r a ps a re i n v o l v e d, t he C o u rt has b e en r e f e r r ed to s e v e r al c a s es and for t he p u r p o s es of e n l i g h t e n i ng t he a c c u s ed a nd t he p u b l i c, I d e em it u s e f ul to again shortly r e f er of s o me of t h o se c a s e s. T he first one is t he c a se of S v K r a m er and O t h e r s, 1 9 9 1 ( 1) S A C R, at p . 25 (Nm) . In t h at c a se the C o u rt d e a lt w i th at l e a st t h r ee c a t e g o r i es of c o n t r a v e n t i o ns of t he D i a m o nd P r o c l a m a t i on and t he m a n n er in w h i ch t he C o u r ts in t he p a st d e a lt w i th t h o se c a s e s. T h e se t h r ee c a t e g o r i es are set o ut b r i e f ly at p a ge 33 from p a r a g r a ph B-H and it is u s e f ul to r e p e at t h at p a rt of t he r e p o rt of the said c a s e: "When a n a l y z i ng the s e n t e n c es in t he a f o r e g o i n g, m o s t ly u n r e p o r t e d, c a s es of the S u p r e me C o u rt of N a m i b i a, a c l e ar d i s t i n c t i on is a p p a r e nt b e t w e en s e n t e n c es in c a s es w h e re t r a ps have b e en i n v o l v ed in s e l l i ng d i a m o n ds to the accused w ho w e re first o f f e n d e r s, and c a s es w h e re the a c c u s ed w e re c o n v i c t ed of t he t h e ft of d i a m o n ds from a l i c e n c ed e m p l o y er such as the C o n s o l i d a t ed D i a m o nd M i n es C o m p a ny or w h e re e m p l o y e es w e re c o n v i c t ed of a c o n t r a v e n t i on of s 2 8 of Proc 17 of 1 9 3 9, b ut w h e re the c i r c u m s t a n c es justified t he i n f e r e n ce t h at t he d i a m o n ds w e re stolen by t he e m p l o y ee f r om t he l i c e n c ed o w n e r. In r e c e nt y e a rs almost all convicted o f f e n d e rs of t he first c a t e g o ry w e re sentenced to i m p r i s o n m e nt w i th an a l t e r n a t i ve of a f i n e, p l us a p e r i od of i m p r i s o n m e n t, suspended as a w h o l e. T he second category of c o n v i c t ed o f f e n d e rs w e re sentenced to imprisonment a l so in t he c a se of first o f f e n d e r s. A third c a t e g o ry can also be d i s t i n g u i s h e d, w h e re t he accused w as convicted of p o s s e s s i on of d i a m o n ds and w h e re no t r ap p l a y ed any r o le or w h e re a t r ap w as u s e d, but the a c c u s ed w as a l r e a dy in illegal p o s s e s s i on of d i a m o n ds and t h us a l r e a dy c o m m i t t i ng a c r i me before the t r ap w as s p r u ng in o r d er to o b t a in evidence of the o f f e n ce or to r e c o v er the d i a m o n d s. In t h is third c a t e g o ry e v en first o f f e n d e rs in p o s s e s s i on of d i a m o n ds of v e ry small v a l u e, v e ry o f t en w e re s e n t e n c ed to i m p r i s o n m e nt w i t h o ut the o p t i on of a f i ne a nd w i t h o ut suspension of the p e r i o ds of i m p r i s o n m e n t ". In t he c a se of the S t a te v K r a m e r, t he a p p e al a g a i n st s e n t e n ce w as upheld and an a l t e r n a t i ve of a f i ne w as s u b s t i t u t ed for the sentence of i m p r i s o n m e nt by t he C o u rt a q u o. H o w e v e r, the legislature increased t he m a x i m um p e n a l ty d r a s t i c a l ly subsequent to t he d a te of t he c o m m i s s i on of t he o f f e n ce in the a f o r e s a id case of S v K r a m er and O t h e r s. T he m a x i m um p e n a l ty w as increased to R2 00 000 or 15 y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt or b o th by P r o c l a m a t i on AG 7 of 199 0, d a t ed 1 3 / 3 / 1 9 9 0, w h i ch u n d e r l i n ed the gravity of t he o f f e n c e. In S v K o e k e m o er and O t h e r s, 1991(1) SACR at p . 4 27 (Nm) , t he C o u rt further dealt w i th the a b u se of t he u se of t r a ps a nd t he p a r a g r a ph in the h e a d n o te b r i e f ly s u m m a r i s i ng t he c i r c u m s t a n c es and the a p p r o a ch of the C o u rt s h o u ld a l so be r e p e a t ed for the p u r p o se of t h is c a s e: "The a c c u s e d, w ho w e re 28 and 29 y e a rs of a ge r e s p e c t i v e l y, w e re c o n v i c t ed of p u r c h a s i ng u n c ut d i a m o n ds to t he v a l ue of R 2 20 000 in c o n t r a v e n t i on of s 2 8 ( b) of t he D i a m o nd P r o c l a m a t i on 17 of 1939 ( N m ). T he a c c u s ed had m et one B in J o h a n n e s b u rg w ho had p r o m i s ed t h em that they c o u ld m a ke a p r o f it of about R 15 000 each from b u y i ng d i a m o n ds in N a m i b ia and r e s e l l i ng them. He (B) k n ew s e l l e rs and p u r c h a s e rs and could a r r a n ge a s a l e. T he a c c u s ed w e nt a l o ng w i th B's p l an and b o r r o w ed an a m o u nt of R 90 000 for t h is p u r p o s e. T h ey w e nt to N a m i b ia a c c o m p a n i ed by B and e v e n t u a l ly t h ey m et t he p o l i ce t r ap w ho w as to sell t h em t he d i a m o n d s. T he d e al w as c o n c l u d ed in t he p r e s e n ce of B and as soon as t he m o n ey w as h a n d ed o v er t he a c c u s ed w e re i n f o r m ed t h at it w as a t r ap and t h ey w e re a r r e s t e d. T he C o u rt formed an i m p r e s s i on of t he a c c u s ed t h at they w e re u n i n t e l l i g e nt a nd w e re n ot k n o w l e d g e a b le in m a t t e rs of t h is s o r t. T h ey w e re b o th first o f f e n d e r s. T he C o u rt h e ld t h at it w as c l e ar t h at B w as an informer and t h at h is a c t i o ns and t h o se of t he p o l i ce d e s e r v ed c e n s u r e: w h en a t r ap w as set for a p e r s on c e r t a in p r e c a u t i o ns o u g ht to be t a k en to e n s u re t h at p e r s o ns w ho w e re e n g a g ed in illicit d i a m o nd b u y i ng fell v i c t im to the t r ap and not p e o p le w ho h ad no p r e v i o us r e c o r d s, w ho w e re o t h e r w i se i g n o r a nt a nd h ad b e en e n t i c e d, e n c o u r a g ed or i n c i t ed by p e o p le such as p r o f e s s i o n al i n f o r m e rs w o r k i ng w i th t he p o l i c e. T he C o u rt held t h at in a c a se such as t he p r e s e nt t he C o u rt had to i n d i c a te to t h o se w ho c o n d u c t ed t r ap systems that the C o u rt w o u ld n ot a l l ow a b u se of the system to c o n t i n u e. T he a c c u s ed w e re a c c o r d i n g ly each sentenced to a f i ne of R3 000 or n i ne m o n t h s' i m p r i s o n m e nt p l us five y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e nt all of w h i ch w as s u s p e n d ed fore a period of five y e a rs on c e r t a in c o n d i t i o n s ". T h en in t he c a se S v De B e e r, 1991(2) SACR at p a ge 25 (Nm) a t r ap w as a l so involved to bring the a c c u s ed to j u s t i c e. T he s e n t e n ce imposed by t he judge in t he C o u rt a q uo w as i m p r i s o n m e nt of 4 y e a r s, 2 y e a rs of w h i ch w e re s u s p e n d ed on c e r t a in c o n d i t i o n s, n o t w i t h s t a n d i ng t he f a ct t h at t he a c c u s ed had b o u g ht the d i a m o n ds in the c o u r se of a p o l i ce t r a p. T he state referred to this c a se to s h ow t h at t h at s e n t e n ce w as an a p p r o p r i a te sentence b e c a u se on a p p e al t he F u ll B e n ch d id not set a s i de this s e n t e n c e. B ut as Mr M a r i t z, for a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, c o r r e c t ly p o i n t ed o u t, t he r e a s on w hy t he appeal did not succeed w as n ot b e c a u se t he j u d g es on a p p e al held t h at t he sentence w as a s e n t e n ce w i th w h i ch t h ey a g r e e d, but b e c a u se it could not be said on t he r e c o rd in t h at c a se t h at t he sentence of t he C o u rt a q uo w as s t a r t l i n g ly i n a p p r o p r i a te or t h at t he J u d ge a q uo h ad m i s d i r e c t ed h i m s e l f. T h is is so because t he C o u rt a q uo h as a w i de d i s c r e t i on and on a p p e al the Court of A p p e al d o es n ot e a s i ly i n t e r f e re w i th such a sentence u n l e ss it is s h o c k i ng or s t a r t l i n g ly i n a p p r o p r i a te or u n l e ss t h e re a re c e r t a in m i s d i r e c t i o ns a n d / or i r r e g u l a r i t i es c o m m i t t ed by t he J u d ge a q uo or t he C o u rt a q u o. T h at case is not r e a l ly a u t h o r i ty for i m p o s i ng a sentence of i m p r i s o n m e nt o n l y, w i t h o ut t he o p t i on of a f i n e. In t he c a se of S v Dennis De B r u y n, t he p r e s i d i ng j u d ge of t he H i gh C o u r t, my b r o t h er H a n n a h, in t he c a se of a t r a p, a l so i m p o s ed a sentence w h i ch allowed t he a c c u s ed to p ay a f i ne as an a l t e r n a t i ve to i m p r i s o n m e n t. T he s e n t e n ce in t h at c a se w h e re the a c c u s ed had b o u g ht d i a m o n ds f r om a p o l i ce t r a p, w as a fine of R 25 000 or 3 y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt in d e f a u lt of p a y m e nt a nd in a d d i t i on 5 y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt w h i ch w as t o t a l ly s u s p e n d ed on c e r t a in c o n d i t i o n s. H o w e v e r, in t he p r e s e nt c a se t he t r ap c o n f o r m ed to e s s e n t i a l ly e v e ry r u le a nd g u i d e l i ne laid d o wn in the c a s es a f o r e s a id a nd t h e re is no real s u g g e s t i o n, at least not a s u g g e s t i on s u p p o r t ed by t he e v i d e n c e, t h at in this c a se t he t r ap w as n ot a b s o l u t e ly fair and j u s t i f i e d. T he only a s p e ct of t he t r ap w h i ch t h e r e f o re m ay be of some b e n e f it to t he a c c u s ed in t h is c a se is t he fact t h at it could be a r g u ed t h at b ut for t he t r a p, and e v en t h o u gh t he a c c u s ed w e re k e en to e n t er i n to t he t r a n s a c t i o n, t h ey m ay not h a ve e n t e r ed i n to a ny t r a n s a c t i o n, if the o p p o r t u n i ty w as not p r e s e n t ed to t h em by t he t r a p. In t he c a se of S v De B e e r, s u p r a, at p . 2 9, p a r . c - h, I e x p l a i n ed t h is c o n s i d e r a t i on as f o l l o w s: "This c an be f u r t h er i l l u s t r a t ed by d r a w i ng a d i s t i n c t i on b e t w e en t he r o le by p o l i ce in n o n- t r a p p i ng c a s es w h e re the p o l i ce i n v e s t i g a te a c r i me or o f f e n ce a l r e a dy c o m m i t t ed or in t he p r o c e ss of b e i ng c o m m i t t e d, and a t t e m pt to o b t a in e v i d e n ce of such a c r i me or o f f e n c e, w h e r e as in t he first c a t e g o ry of a t r a p p i ng c a se t he p o l i ce or a p o l i ce agent or i n f o r m er u s u a l ly t a k es t he i n i t i a t i ve to a p p r o a ch a p e r s o n, w ho is n ot k n o wn to t h em to be a b u y er of r o u gh and u n c ut d i a m o n ds a nd s u g g e st t h at he or they h a ve d i a m o n ds a v a i l a b le for s a l e, a nd o n ce such p e r s on i n d i c a t es h is i n t e r e st in such a d e a l, a p o l i ce t r ap is set for h i m. At t h at stage such p e r s o n, b e i ng a first o f f e n d e r, has d e m o n s t r a t ed his w i l l i n g n e ss to b uy and as s u c h, a p o t e n t i al b u y er and a p o t e n t i al o f f e n d e r, b ut he is not a b u y er and n ot an o f f e n d e r. By setting the trap t he police is t h en n ot a t t e m p t i ng to o b t a in evidence of any a l r e a dy p e r p e t r a t ed c r i me or o f f e n c e, b ut p r o v i d e s, by m e a ns of false p r e t e n c e s, an easy opportunity for t he i n t e r e s t ed p e r s on to become a buyer and so to b e c o me an o f f e n d e r. In such c i r c u m s t a n c es t he t r a n s a c t i on itself is in essence a simulated one a nd t he o f f e n ce committed a simulated or a r t i f i c i al o n e, a r t i f i c i a l ly c r e a t ed w i th p o l i ce p a r t i c i p a t i o n; an o f f e n ce w h i c h, b ut for the t r a p, m ay in real life n e v er have been committed and an a c c u s ed first o f f e n d er w h o, but for the t r a p, m ay n e v er h a ve b e c o me an offender or criminal w i th d i s a s t r o us and tragic c o n s e q u e n c es for him and h is f a m i l y. T h is c h a r a c t e r i s t ic of this c a t e g o ry of a d i a m o nd c a se has not b e en analysed and spelt out in so m a ny w o r ds in t he a u t h o r i t i es b e f o re S v K r a m er and O t h e r s, (supra) and also not in the line of c a s es r e f e r r ed to in K r a m e r 's c a se ( s u p r a ). B ut in my v i ew t h is w as the u n d e r l y i ng reason for t r e a t i ng t h is c a t e g o ry of case on a d i f f e r e nt f o o t i ng t h an the o t h er c a t e g o r i e s. In the a f o r e s a id c a t e g o ry of c a s e, first o f f e n d e rs w e re u s u a l ly not sentenced to imprisonment w i t h o ut t he o p t i on of a fine or imprisonment w h i ch w as not w h o l ly s u s p e n d e d. T h is w as the c a s e, w h e t h er or not a h i gh d e g r ee of incitement or u n d ue i n f l u e n ce w as p r o v ed or n o t. Of c o u r s e, if a high d e g r ee of i n c i t e m e nt or u n d ue influence is proved in a p a r t i c u l ar c a s e, t h is w i ll be an additional r e a s on for t r e a t i ng the a c c u s ed m o re l e n i e n t l y. See S v K o e k e m o er and A n o t h e r, High Court of N a m i b i a, 13 S e p t e m b er 1 9 9 0, still u n r e p o r t e d, a judgment of O ' L i n n, J." In t he p r e s e nt c a s e, both accused w e re brought u n d er t he i m p r e s s i on t h at t he sellers w e re from C. D. M. T h ey w e re t h e r e f o re q u i te happy to act as r e c e i v e rs of s t o l en p r o p e r t y. T h e re are s e v e r al a g g r a v a t i ng f a c t o rs in t h is c a se w h i ch o u t w e i gh the c o n s i d e r a t i on t h at t he a c c u s ed w e re c a u g ht in a p o l i ce t r a p. N o ne of t he a c c u s ed h a ve e x p l a i n ed to t h is C o u rt w hy t h ey a c t u a l ly c o m m i t t ed t h is o f f e n c e, w h at t h e ir m o t i v a t i on w as a nd w hy t h e ir m o r al g u i lt should be less or should be r e g a r d ed as l e ss t h an w h at a p p e a rs on t he face of i t. N o ne of t h em t e s t i f i ed to t he e f f e ct t h at t h ey r e g r e t t ed t h e ir a c t i o ns and t h e re is no o t h er i n d i c a t i on of g e n u i ne r e m o r s e, e v en t h o u gh t he fact t h at t h ey b o th p l e a d ed g u i l ty a nd p r o v i d ed t he C o u rt w i th an e x p l a n a t i on of t h e ir p l ea a nd w i th c e r t a in a d m i s s i o ns w h i ch a s s i s t ed t he state a nd t he C o u rt and c u r t a i l ed t he p r o c e e d i n g s. S u ch c o n t r i b u t i o n, h o w e v e r, d o es n ot justify an i n f e r e n ce on t he b a l a n ce of p r o b a b i l i t i es t h at they h a ve g e n u i ne r e m o r s e, o t h er t h an r e m o r se w h i ch m a ny a c c u s ed p e o p le h a ve w h en t h ey are c a u g ht out and w h en t h ey have to face p u n i s h m e n t. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 d id not e v en t e s t i f y. On t he a v a i l a b le e v i d e n ce b o th a p p e a r ed to h a ve b e en greedy and in a h u r ry to do a d e a l. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 even told t he p o l i c e m a n, a s s i s t e nt S e r g e a nt D a w i d, t h at he had p r e v i o u s ly lost m o n ey b e c a u se t he d i a m o n ds b o u g ht w e re not g e n u i ne d i a m o n ds a nd t h at he n ow w a n t ed to b uy g e n u i ne d i a m o n ds to r e c o up h is l o s s e s. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 h u r r i ed to t he scene and w i t h o ut m u ch a do e n t e r ed i n to t he t r a n s a c t i o n. He brought t he e q u i p m e nt of a d i a m o nd d e a l er such as a d i a m o n d - t e s t er and a m a g n i f y i ng g l a ss a nd u s ed b o th i n s t r u m e n ts apparently to s a t i s fy h i m s e lf as to t he g e n u i n e n e ss of the diamonds and t he m a ss a nd v a l ue of t he d i a m o n d s. A c c u s ed number 2 a l so u s ed t he m a g n i f y i ng g l a s s. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 a p p a r e n t ly did not have t he r e a dy c a sh a v a i l a b le to b uy t he d i a m o n ds h i m s e l f, but a c c u s ed n u m b er 2 h ad R 40 000 a v a i l a b le w h i ch he paid over as a d e p o s it on t he p u r c h a se p r i c e. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 appears to be a h e a l t hy m an in t he p r i me of h is l i f e, he has a d e p e n d a nt w i fe a nd a s on of 18 w ho is a s t u d e nt employed p a r t - t i me and p a r t i a l ly d e p e n d e nt on h im for m a i n t e n a n c e. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 did not m a ke any strong p o i n ts a b o ut d e p e n d a n ts b ut h as a w i fe and a d a u g h t er to m a i n t a i n. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 w i ll have to forfeit t he R 39 000 p a id o v er as a d e p o s it and t h is is an important f a c t or w h i ch I m u st c o n s i d er in h is f a v o ur b e c a u s e, as I p o i n t ed out in S v K r a m er a nd O t h e r s, t h is forfeiture of R39 000 is a p u n i s h m e nt in i t s e l f. A c c u s ed number 2, a c c o r d i ng to h is e v i d e n c e, is n ot a v e ry healthy p e r s on in t h at he h ad a b y p a ss o p e r a t i on of an artery in his leg in r e c e nt y e a rs a nd h as s o m e t i m e s, a c c o r d i ng to him, difficulty in w a l k i n g. It m u s t, h o w e v e r, be p o i n t ed out that he had no p r o b l em in m o v i ng q u i c k ly to t he p l a ce w h e re the d i a m o n ds w e re a v a i l a b le for s a l e. A c c u s ed n u m b er 1 has several p r e v i o us c o n v i c t i o ns b ut n o ne r e l a t ed to diamond d e a l i ng and in so far as d i a m o nd d e a l i ng is c o n c e r n e d, he can be r e g a r d ed as a first o f f e n d e r. T he fact t h at he has t h e se p r e v i o us c o n v i c t i o ns m u st c o u nt a g a i n st h im although t h is C o u rt w i ll not g i ve it m u ch w e i g ht b e c a u se t he crimes or o f f e n c es c o m m i t t ed w e re not very- s e r i o us . A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 has no p r e v i o us c o n v i c t i o n s. B o th a c c u s ed are p r o m i n e nt in p u b l ic life and in t he c a se of a c c u s ed n u m b er 1 he w as still active in p a r ty p o l i t i cs a nd up to t he date of his o f f e n ce p l a y ed a p r o m i n e nt p a rt in a p o l i t i c al party in this c o u n t r y. A c c u s ed n u m b er 2 w as a m i n i s t er in the t r a n s i t i o n al g o v e r n m e nt up to t he d a te of t he i m p l e m e n t a t i on of the so-called P e a ce P l a n, R e s o l u t i on 4 3 5, w h i ch led to the i n d e p e n d e n ce of t h is c o u n t r y. B o th of t he a c c u s ed are m en w ho c a n n ot p l e ad i g n o r a n ce in a ny s e n s e. T h ey h a ve held leadership p o s i t i o ns in t he p u b l ic l i fe of t h is c o u n t ry in the past and in the c a se of a c c u s ed n u m b er 1, he w as still active as a p u b l ic figure in t h is c o u n t ry at t he t i me of his a r r e s t. T h is C o u rt is not here d e a l i ng w i th i g n o r a nt p e o p le w ho d id n ot h a ve t he opportunity to go to s c h o o l. P e r h a ps t h ey d id n ot h a ve a ll the o p p o r t u n i t i es w h i ch some s e c t i o ns of t he c o m m u n i ty h a d, but they w e re p r i v i l e g ed c o m p a r ed to so m a ny o t h er p e o p le w ho o f t en a p p e ar b e f o re t h is C o u rt for c o n t r a v e n t i o ns of the D i a m o nd P r o c l a m a t i on a nd w ho a re s e n t e n c ed to periods of i m p r i s o n m e n t, w i t h o ut t he o p t i on of a f i n e. B o th a c c u s ed b e t r a y ed t he trust of t h e ir o r g a n i s a t i o ns a nd of t he p u b l i c. T he C o u rt w as informed t h at b o th are a b le to p ay a s u b s t a n t i al f i n e. In t he c a se of a c c u s ed n u m b er 2, as I h a ve i n d i c a t e d, he m u st forfeit R 40 000 to t he state and it m u st be r e g a r d ed as a loss to h im and p a rt of h is p u n i s h m e n t. A l t h o u gh in the p a r t i c u l ar t r a n s a c t i on on w h i ch t h ey w e re c o n v i c t ed t he p e r s on w ho a c t u a l ly p u r c h a s ed w as a c c u s ed n u m b er 2, t he other f a c t o rs t h at I h a ve i n d i c a t ed h a ve led me to c o n c l u de t h at t h e re is no r e a s on to d i f f e r e n t i a te b e t w e en t he t wo a c c u s ed in t he s e n t e n ce to be i m p o s ed on t h e m. I h a ve c o me to t he c o n c l u s i on t h at a b a l a n c ed a nd a p p r o p r i a te sentence to be i m p o s ed on each of t he a c c u s e d, is t he f o l l o w i n g: P a y m e nt of a fine of R 20 000 (Twenty T h o u s a nd R a n d) or 2 (two) y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt if t he fine is not paid and in a d d i t i on a p e r i od of 5 (five y e a r s) of i m p r i s o n m e n t, 33$ (three and a h a l f) y e a rs of w h i ch is suspended for 5 (five) 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 c o n t r a v e n i ng section 28 of P r o c l a m a t i on 17 of 1 9 3 9, 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. C o u n s el for A c c u s ed 1 and 3: A d v. G. M a r i tz I n s t r u c t ed b y: S t e rn & B a r n a rd C o u n s el for A c c u s ed 2: A d v. G. Hinda I n s t r u c t ed b y: K a r u a i he & C o n r a d ie C o u n s el for t he S t a t e: A d v. H. J a n u a r ie