Cape Town – As the Cape Flats continues to witness a raging gang warfare, a convicted murderer’s appeal against his 20-year sentence has been dismissed, with the Western Cape High Court finding there is no need for substantial and compelling circumstances for a harsher sentence.
Taurieq Davids had just turned 21 in 2018 when he was accused of shooting six times and killing a man, after asking him what he was doing outside a shop, 30m from where he lived.
Davids was convicted last December in the regional court on a charge of murder and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
He argued in an appeal before the Western Cape High Court that the magistrate's decision to impose 20 years' imprisonment, rather than the minimum prescribed sentence of 15 years, was inappropriate and out of proportion.
He denied having been on the scene and his attorney said he was a first offender.
No evidence was led in mitigation. The magistrate had said that despite Davids’ youthfulness, the gruesome nature of the offence did not show any immaturity.
The post-mortem report revealed six gunshot entry wounds and a seventh tangential gunshot wound.
Only one of the shots entered the front of the victim's body, at his left collarbone.
Western Cape High Court Judge Owen Rogers, with concurring Judge Deidre Kusevitsky, found there is no requirement that there should be “substantial and compelling circumstances” for a higher sentence.
They noted that the proviso to section 51(2) preserves the trial court's sentencing discretion, subject to the cap that the sentence may not exceed the prescribed sentence by more than five years.
“The magistrate in this case gave reasons for his decision. He did not exercise his discretion whimsically but in a judicial manner and on reasonable grounds.
“The fact that we might have been inclined to give less weight to the aggravating features (I do not say that we would have) is irrelevant, unless we can find that the magistrate misdirected himself in some way. I cannot say that such was the position.
“The magistrate also mentioned that within his area of jurisdiction the community was under siege from violent crime, committed with impunity and brazenness.
“Society expected adequate sentences to be imposed in order to send a message to other criminals. General deterrence was a relevant consideration.
’’Society needed to have confidence in the criminal justice system,” their judgment read.
Cape Times