Another man who killed his son received a ten year suspended jail sentence, and the prosecuting authority is unhappy about the disparity.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has announced its intention of appealing a ruling which saw 51-year-old Vanderbijlpark man Coert Johannes Kruger, who shot and killed his son after allegedly mistaking him for an intruder, released with a warning.
The NPA says the sentence of caution and discharge imposed on Kruger is “shockingly inappropriate”, adding that it has “successfully applied for leave to appeal the sentence”.
“The accused shot and killed his own son, Coert Johannes Kruger Junior, who was on the roof of his grandmother’s house on the evening of March 22 2019,” says the authority in a statement.
“He pleaded guilty to a charge of murder and explained that he reacted to an alarm activation at his mother’s house (grandmother to the deceased) and met with a security guard from the Security Company that called him earlier.
“After an investigation, the accused and the security guard located a person on the roof and he immediately shot at him, only to realise at a later stage that it was his own son.”
The NPA then explains which grounds it is appealing the sentence on, explaining that “the grounds for the State to appeal are only limited to a question of law which can be misinterpreted, misdirected or misapplied”.
The prosecuting authority feels the magistrate is guilty of misdirection by not considering the recent case of an Ennerdale man who was sentenced to ten years in prison, suspended for five years on condition he doesn’t commit a similar offence, for similarly shooting and killing his son in an alleged accident.
“The accused in that matter fell asleep in the vehicle whilst waiting for his son who attended extra lessons at Fred Norman High School and was awakened by his son’s knock on the window but mistakenly shot his son, thinking that he was being robbed of his vehicle.
“The great disparity in the two sentences under similar circumstances, both in the Gauteng Division, does not augur well for legal precedent,” said the NPA.
According to the authority, the principle of stare decisis in law means that the law as applied in one case must be considered in cases that follow in which the facts are similar.
For this reason, the NPA “could not leave this matter unchallenged”.
“The appeal will be enrolled and the date for the hearing will be communicated in due course,” the statement concludes.
In other news – Social Media insults #IdolsSA’s Sneziey & her Gogo of using Tokoloshes
Sneziey didn’t care when people attacked her on social media. In fact, she was prepared. BUT THE ATTENTION SHIFTED TO HER GOGO AND SHE COULDN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE. The Idols SA runner-up wants people insulting her and her gogo on social media, saying they own tokoloshes, to back off.
“Me and my gogo are not evil,” said Sneziey, whose real name is Snenhlanhla Msomi. “I wish my mother was still alive so she can speak on my behalf.” “I don’t have a tokoloshe and my gogo doesn’t own one. I’m a praying woman! Dumi Mkokstad and Jumbo can attest to this because they taught me how to pray.” continue reading
Source: The Citizen