Authored By: Elsie Mbalane
University of Fort Hare
- Case Title and Citation
Case Title: Billy v S (Appeal) 2024
Citation: A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376
- Court name and Bench
Name of the court: In the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town
Name of the judges:
- Justice M Francis and
- Acting Justice LK Siyo
Bench type: Division bench
- Date of the judgement:
Date Heard: 18 October 2024
Date Handed Down:12 November 2024
- Parties Involved
The appellant, Andile Billy, is a male first offender. The appellant is 42 years of age and has been married to Babalwa Billy since 2003. The respondent is the State.
- Facts of the case
The appellant appeared before the Regional Court before the appeal, and he was convicted of murder under Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 on the ground that the murder was found to have been premeditated. The appellant intentionally and unlawfully stabbed his wife 25 times to death. The deceased took her last breath in front of her brother, who witnessed the murder. The appellant murdered the deceased on the grounds that she was engaged in an extramarital affair.[1]
The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 51(1) of the Act based on the evidence given by the deceased’s brother in the Regional Court. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the convictions and sentence made by this court, contending that the state did not have enough evidence to prove that the murder was premeditated.[2]
6 Legal Issues
- Whether the Regional Court proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant premeditated the deceased’s murder.
- Whether the minor’s evidence amounts to credibility.
- Whether life imprisonment is just to apply to a first offender.
- Arguments of the parties
7.1 Arguments of the appellant
The appellant argued that the intruder entered their house and assaulted him with something on his head, and he became unconscious. He further stated that when he regained consciousness, he found that his head and neck were bleeding and that his wife was lying down covered with blood. The appellant stated that the deceased’s brother’s evidence, who was a minor at the time of the commission of the murder, is inconsistent and unreliable.[3]
The appellant also argued that he confronted the deceased regarding a text message that he saw on her phone, wherein a man expressed his love for the deceased. He stated that he had sustained cuts on his hands due to the physical altercation with the intruder. He contended that during the altercation, the deceased hurled insults that were directed towards the chaotic situation.[4]
The appellant argued that the first person to call after regaining consciousness was his older brother and admitted that he never informed him that the intruder had entered their house and killed the deceased. He further argued that life imprisonment for a first offender was a harsh punishment. He supported his argument under section 51(1) of the Criminal Amendment Act, which makes provision for minimum sentences.[5]
7.2 Arguments of the respondent
The deceased’s brother’s evidence to the effect that the exchange soon evolved into violence, which included the appellant’s merciless stabbing of the deceased to death, is corroborated by the appellant’s older brother’s statement, which stated that he received a call from the appellant who informed him that he had killed his wife. Ms Thaiteng, the prosecutor, argued that the appellant corroborated the evidence of the deceased’s brother. She highlighted that the appellant also argued that he had an argument with the deceased about her extramarital affair, which she was allegedly engaged in with another man. Ms Thaiteng also argued that the appellant also argued that he uttered the words “I am fixing my house” when the intruder entered the house while he was engaged in a heated argument with the deceased. She further argued that the appellant had stated that he broke the deceased’s phone. Ms Thaiteng used the common approach that was dealt with in the case of S v Sauls. In this case, the court dealt with the approach to be adopted when dealing with the evidence of a single witness. Ms Thaiteng submitted that the appellant’s arguments were riddled with inconsistencies.[6]
- Judgement /Final Decision
The court decided that the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case is 20 years’ imprisonment. As a result, the court sentenced the appellant to 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, the appeal of the conviction of murder was dismissed.[7]
- Legal Reasoning/ Ratio Decidendi
The court accepted the deceased’s brother’s evidence to the effect that he observed a heated argument between the appellant and the deceased, and the deceased’s death through a hole in a door. The court found that it is indeed true that the deceased’s brother’s evidence was corroborated by the appellant. The court also held that there is no dispute that a heated argument exchange erupted between the appellant and the deceased over an extramarital affair that the deceased was accused of being engaged in. The court also held that it is not in dispute that the appellant uttered the words that he was “fixing his house” when the intruder entered the house while he was engaged in a heated argument with the deceased.[8]
The court found that the appellant’s evidence was inconsistent and contradictory because he could not provide enough information to prove that the intruder had indeed assaulted him. The court considered the crime, the cruelty with which the crime was committed, and the need to deter society against the senseless killing of women.[9]
The court referred to the case of S v Malgas, where the SCA held that all considerations traditionally relevant to the sentencing stage should be taken into account in order to determine the existence of substantial and compelling circumstances which warrant a deviation from the prescribed sentence. This is also supported in terms of Section 51(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which justifies a lesser sentence when there are substantial and compelling circumstances.[10] This court also referred to the case of S v Zinn, where it considered these considerations, namely the crime, the offender, and the interests of society.[11]
The court used the case of S v PM, which defined premeditated murder as something done deliberately after rationally considering the timing of the method of doing so. The court stated that there must be evidence to prove that the murder was premeditated. In this regard, there was no evidence before the trial court to prove that the murder of the deceased was premeditated. The Regional Court did not provide enough evidence to establish premeditation.[12]
- Conclusion
In conclusion, this case is an appeal case between the State and the appellant. In this case, it was held that the deceased’s murder was not premeditated; henceforth, the Regional Court could not provide enough evidence to support that the murder was premeditated. The minor’s evidence was found to be credible because it stands to reason that the only witnesses present at the scene were the appellant and the deceased’s brother. The life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Regional Court was replaced by 20 years’ imprisonment, considering that the appellant was a first-time offender.
Bibliography
Case laws
Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
Legislation
Criminal Law Amendment Act.
[1] Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
[2] Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
[6] Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
[10] Section 51(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
[11] Billy v S A75/24 [2024] ZAWCHC 376 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape Town.
[12] Ibid.
