S v SIKOTI 2012 (1) ZLR 148 (H)

Flynote

Criminal procedure (sentence) — offences under Criminal Law Code — possession of a dangerous drug (s 157(1)) — possession not necessarily less serious than dealing — substantial amount of drug in accused's possession — permissible to infer that drug not only for personal use — D sentence requiring treatment for addiction — need for evidence of addiction

Headnote

The appellant, a repeat offender, appealed against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, of which six months were suspended on appropriate conditions for contravening s 157 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The facts disclosed that he had been found in possession of 2 kg of dagga which had been hidden in a maize field. In attacking the sentence, it was urged upon the appellant's behalf that it induced a sense of shock.

Held, that while the legislature did distinguish possession and dealing by creating two different offences, this did not necessarily make the offence of possession more trivial than dealing and deserving, in every case, a fine or community service.

Held, further, dismissing the appeal against sentence, that it was permissible for the court to infer that the dagga was not for the appellant's personal use because of the large quantity involved. His previous conviction further supported the inference that he possessed the dagga for resale or supply.

Held, further, that it would not be incompetent for a court to impose a sentence requiring treatment for addiction in terms of s 157(2) of the Code in the absence of evidence of proof of addiction, and there was no such evidence in this case.