Infrastructure vandalism and cable theft cost South Africa billions annually, with devastating effects on essential services and economic growth. However, a recent ruling has demonstrated the judiciary’s determination to combat this growing crisis.Â
Hopolang Mokoena, 26 at the time of the offence, appealed his 15-year sentence for cable theft in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. He argued that he intended to sell the copper to open a tuck shop where his younger brother could work and earn an income.Â
Mokoena, who was single and had no children, claimed he also wanted to assist his grandmother who was earning a small pension. He was part-time employed as a driver in a scrapyard and earned approximately R1 500,00 a month.Â
In his defence, he stated that he was a first offender and pleaded guilty to the charge; in so doing, he did not waste the court’s time and expressed true remorse for the crime that he committed.Â
His Legal Aid South Africa counsel, identified in the judgment only as Ms Simpson, pointed out that Mokoena “only cut 2m of 185 mm of three core copper cable which is valued at R12 181,00”. The fact that it was a small amount of copper coupled with the State’s neglect to lead evidence on the impact the theft had on the municipality and community, should, according to Simpson, be important factors in determining whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist.Â
However, the court found no compelling reasons to overturn the sentencing, stating that Mokoena’s arguments did not fulfil the criteria necessary to warrant leniency. It dismissed his appeal, establishing that the original sentencing was justified, as substantial and compelling circumstances for a lesser penalty were not evidenced.Â
The legislation marks these crimes as serious, warranting severe penalties to deter further occurrences and protect the community’s well-being.Â
In a decision that underscores the judiciary’s resolve to tackle crimes against vital infrastructure, Judge J Janse van Nieuwenhuyzen elaborated on the significance of such offences in a nation grappling with high incidences of crime.Â
The court reiterated that the tampering or destruction of essential infrastructure poses a substantial risk to public safety. The legislation marks these crimes as serious, warranting severe penalties to deter further occurrences and protect the community’s well-being.Â
Judge Janse van Nieuwenhuyzen referenced the Crime Law Amendment Act’s preamble, which recognises the harmful consequences of such acts on society and the economy. “These acts are becoming increasingly organised and are often committed by armed groups,” the preamble states, indicating an alarming trend that necessitates a robust response from the legal system.Â
#Conviction
Â
