WINDHOEK – Two Swakopmund residents convicted and sentenced in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court on a charge of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft had their hopes of an early release nipped in the bud.
Dawid Drotsky and Walter Gertze launched an appeal against the sentences of 36 months’ direct imprisonment they received in the magistrate’s court.
In the instance of Drotsky the trial magistrate ordered that 12 months of the 36 months should be suspended for a period of five years on the usual conditions and in the case of Gertze who is serving a jail term for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, it was ordered that eight months of the 36 months be served concurrently with his current jail term.
According to Judge Alfred who presided over the appeal, he saw no reason why the High Court should interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial court. He said it is his considered view that the record of proceedings does not reflect any misdirection regarding the sentence imposed on the appellants “whatsoever”.
He said the trial magistrate correctly took into account the fact that both the appellants have previous convictions. He noted Gertze already broke and burgled the same premises that constituted his previous convictions, which property belongs to his brother-in-law.
Substantial volumes of property were stolen – N$15 000 worth of which only N$7 000 worth was recovered – and the bedroom window was damaged and the rest of the items sold and never retrieved.
According to Judge Siboleka, the trial magistrate was correct in sentencing the accused to a direct jail term as the crime of housebreaking is extremely prevalent in the district of Swakopmund.
He quoted a judgment of Judge Maritz where he stated that housebreaking with intent to steal and theft is a particularly “insidious” form of theft.
He said a man should feel safe and secure in his own home and that housebreaking strikes at and destroys that sense of safety and security and that society has a particular interest that the commission of this crime be discouraged by the imposition of appropriate judicial response.
It was therefore his view that the court of appeal if it was the trial court would have imposed the same sentence and he saw no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, Judge Siboleka concluded.