Bananas Thief Gets 10 Years In Jail

Mpho Mokwape | Monday February 8, 2016 15:58

 

Tshepo Sepatela was slapped with the sentence in June 2015 after the trial magistrate found no exceptional extenuating circumstances and committed him to the High Court for sentencing.

He was now appealing against his conviction arguing he was not given a fair hearing. Before conviction and sentencing he was alleged together with his friend to have burst into the woman’s house around 2013 in Old Naledi wearing balaclavas and attacked the woman and her 19-year-old son with a knife.

During the alleged attack they were said to have threatened her with a knife demanding money but only found the coins and the bananas after hitting her with a rod. Justice Lord Arthur Hamilton of the CoA said there was no ground at all that the appellant was denied a fair hearing. He explained that there were substantial grounds for concluding that the appellant was lying about or at least seriously exaggerating the difficulties he had in conducting cross-examination.

“He seems to have been intent throughout in impeding the administration of justice, with a view to avoiding a conviction on this charge with respect to which there was ample credible and reliable evidence against him,” he said. Justice Hamilton said the appellant despite having contended that his fundamental rights to cross-examine was violated because on most occasions he was not well there was no such evidence to his contention.

He noted that there was no reference in his grounds of appeal to any health factor preventing or inhibiting his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

“Even the medical record that was produced did not establish that the doctor’s view found that he was seriously suffering and was disadvantaged in cross examining witnesses at court on that particular day, nor is there any medically qualified opinion otherwise before the court,” he said.

Hamilton said if the appellant was sick at that time he could have at the next hearing have requested the magistrate to have the two witnesses who had given evidence in chief that day recalled in order to cross examine them again. Furthermore he said the application for cross examination of witnesses again should have been supported with relevant medical documents.

“He knew he could make such an application but also even if he had a significant eye problem on certain days he suffered no miscarriage of justice as a result,” concluded Justice Hamilton.