CASE
NO. CC 12/96
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In
the matter between
THE
STATE
versus
MICHAEL
IVAN OXURUB CORAM: O'LINN, J.
Heard
on: 1996-02-01,
-02, -05, -06 & -07
Delivered
on: 1996-02-29
SENTENCE
O'LINN,
J.
:
You have been convicted of the crime of murder in that on or about
25th September at Swakopmund you unlawfully and intentionally killed
Emma Madam Uiras, - a female person. The person you killed was
actually your girlfriend and this is common cause. When imposing
sentence it is trite law that the Court must consider your personal
circumstances, the nature of the crime you have committed and the
interest of society. Under aims of punishment the the Court must
consider in what way through its sentences it can discourage you or
persons in your position to act in the same way. And that has become
a very important element of punishment for crimes such as murder
because this type of crime, like other crimes of violence, rape and
robbery, have escalated in the last few years and the Court has a
duty as an organ of State to do whatever is possible to also protect
the interest of society and particularly in that sense to protect the
victims, including those who have died but also those who may become
similar victims in future. The only way the Court can really attempt
to discourage this phenomenon of escalating violent crime is by
imposing sentences which would deter you and which would deter
others. There is obviously also the aim of rehabilitation and that
must also be kept in mind.
The
personal circumstances you have put before the Court are that you are
the father of two minor children. There is no indication whatsoever
whether you take the responsibility for these children by maintaining
them. There is also no indication that the children will suffer if
you go to prison for an unduly long period. In those circumstances
the fact that you have two minor children cannot be regarded as a
mitigating circumstance of any importance. What is important in your
personal circumstances is that you have not previously been convicted
of a criminal offence or any crime. The fact that you are a first
offender must be taken into consideration as a serious mitigating
factor. I must point out, however, that most of the crimes of murder
are crimes where the accused persons are first offenders. That
notwithstanding, the Courts in the past have often sentenced first
offenders to death and subsequently when that could not be imposed,
the Courts often imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on people
who are first offenders. So although I must take that into
consideration as an important mitigating factor, that alone does not
mean that you should not go to jail for a long period.
You
have also testified that you most of the time had a job and you
actually reached the stage of standard ten at school but you failed
that standard. It is a circumstance in your favour that you
apparently, most of the time, intended to better yourself and to
obtain proper employment. It does not seem to me that it can be said
you are a person who make no contribution to society and who is just
a liability.
Then
I must look at the crime, the nature of the crime you have committed.
Murder is a serious crime as also conceded by your counsel, Mr
Christians and it remains a very serious crime even if I proceed on
the basis that your intention to kill is rather in the form of dolus
eventualis
and not direct intention to actually kill this particular person, the
victim. So I will take into consideration that in this crime your
intention is in the form of dolus
eventualis
in that when you stabbed the deceased you at least foresaw that as a
result of the stabbing she could die and you nevertheless stabbed her
recklessly and without being discouraged by the prospect that she may
be killed. The fact is also common cause that the victim was your
girlfriend for at least two and a half years and you lived together
as man and wife. Mr Christians has argued that you stabbed and in the
result killed her basically as a consequence of your jealousy because
you realised or must have realised that she now was developing a
relationship with some other person. It must be accepted that what
you did was spurred on by your jealousy and by your emotions. On the
other hand this is a case where you did not find your girlfriend
having intercourse with another person. You
found
her sitting in a vehicle with another person namely Mr Moses Mabedi
and the Court accepted his evidence to the effect that at- the time
when you arrived on the scene he was talking to the deceased and
there was no hugging or kissing and obviously no intercourse. You
were not placed in a position by what you saw which would deprive a
reasonable person or even any other person of their control over the
situation. Your actual action as unfolded before Court in accordance
with the State evidence as well as your own was that in the course
of this situation leading up to the stabbing you basically
contemplated every step. You knew what you were doing and you
decided on going onto the next step. So this was not in that sense a
crime of passion where you lost control and where it could even be
said that any human being would have been so incensed by the
situation which he came upon that he could not control himself or
herself properly. When I consider this crime I do regard your
relationship, the fact that you must have been emotional, as
mitigation to some extent but not a factor of great weight as it may
have been if it was a classical situation where husband or wife
finds his partner in the act of adultery with another person.
You
killed the deceased by stabbing. Stabbing has become and remains and
is increasingly a method used by too many people in this society to
settle their problems by getting rid of their adversary or someone
else by using dangerous weapons such as a knife. The knife was not
produced before this Court but the Court found that you lied about
the knife and that the knife was probably much bigger, if the
Court considers the medical evidence, as you alleged. The Court also
found that the only reason for your lie regarding the knife was
probably that it was a much bigger weapon. The crime was also on a
person who was undefended. That means a young girl. There is no
question whatsoever of self-defence of any sort in this case. That
aggravates your crime.
As
to the interest of society, this is linked to the nature
of this
crime. Society legitimately cries out for deterrent
action by the
Courts because of the phenomenon of continuous
and increasing
violence in the country. The interest of
society will therefor
not be served if you get a sentence
which is not of a nature
which would deter yourself and
other people. Although the Court
must also consider the
possibility of rehabilitation, the
overwhelming aim should
be deterrence. I accept however, that you
are a person who
can be rehabilitated and you can be a useful
member of
society. Unfortunately
throughout this trial and
particularly
during the evidence in mitigation you repeatedly attempted to
deceive the Court. You repeatedly told lies deliberately. To mention
only some is that during the stage before conviction you,
well-knowing that the deceased is dead and cannot controvert what
you say, gave out that you had a wonderful relationship with this
deceased. There were no quarrels between you. There were no
assaults. You emphatically denied that. Here today at the stage of
sentence you were confronted by allegations by witnesses who are not
dead such as the deceased, but who are alive and who could
corroborate to some extent that you
actually
had a bad relationship for a substantial period of time with the
deceased and that in fact you had actually assaulted her. You
admitted in your own words, when confronted, that there were several
assaults. Your excuse was that that was in the course of arguments
and you further testified or admitted that this was by means of
giving her a beating with a belt. Although you denied that you ever
previously sat on the deceased with a knife in your hand when she
was sleeping, the evidence before Court by Ida Skrywer is that you,
in her presence, apologised for having done precisely that, namely
sitting on the deceased with a knife and that is how the deceased
saw you when she woke up out of her sleep. So although your counsel
put it that you deny that you had ever done that, what was not
denied and what was not controverted is Ida Skrywer's evidence that
you actually apologised for that act. So on the available evidence I
must accept that you on a previous occasion was sitting in a
threatening position on the deceased. It was also not directly
placed in dispute with the witness Ida Skrywer that on one occasion
the deceased came to her and showed certain wounds. She had a wound
on her head and she had a stab wound on her finger. That the
deceased had such wounds was not disputed by you. I accept that the
picture of an idyllic relationship drawn by you from the start was
false and that you in fact had assaulted the deceased from time to
time and that the use of a knife was not out of your mind.
You
also tried to get away with lies when you told this Court that the
Court should consider that you had already been in imprisonment for
eight months. Eventually, when you were confronted with this lie,
you said four months. As a matter of fact, it turned out to be in
the region of two and a half months that you were in prison. So
unfortunately when you say to the Court that you are sorry, that you
have true regret and so on, that was accompanied by trying to
deceive the Court about important and relevant facts. The fact that
you were lying on several occasions detracts from the possibility of
giving any weight to any regret that you may have. It seems to me
that, although you may have regret that a person with whom you had a
relationship has died, your greatest regret at.the moment is that
you will probably face many years of imprisonment.
In
all the circumstances it seems to me that the Court will be failing
in its duty to society and to the victim if the Court does not
impose a heavy sentence of imprisonment. I have seriously considered
imposing on you a sentence of life imprisonment, but in view of some
of the mitigating factors that I have mentioned I have decided not
to impose life imprisonment. In the result the sentence that I
impose on you is the following:
Seventeen
(17) years imprisonment.
