Father who killed pregnant wife in front of their children wins appeal for lesser sentence

The man approached the Mahikeng high court after the Taung regional court sentenced him to life for stabbing his wife to death

A father who stabbed his pregnant wife to death as she got into a taxi with their children successfully appealed his sentence of life imprisonment as the state failed to prove he committed “premeditated” murder and the first court did not have jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.

The convicted murderer, 41, referred to as TEM, approached the Mahikeng high court to overturn the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Taung regional court in June 2023 after it found him guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him accordingly.

He pled guilty and detailed to the court in his guilty plea statement how he took his wife’s life with a sharp object on October 9 2022 at Koilang village. The court referred to the wife as MCM.

In his statement, TEM said he was at his house doing laundry and had no food. He decided to wait for his wife to go to work so he could ask her for money.

He said he saw her walking with their two children to the taxi and decided to follow them so he could ask for money.

“I admit that before she got in the taxi, we had an argument and I lost my temper. I admit I then took out half of a scissor which was in my possession and I started to stab her with it.”

He said his wife fell to the ground but he left her and went home, only to hand himself over to the police the next day, where he was arrested for the murder.

He admitted he did not act in self-defence when he stabbed her as she had no weapon and his life was not in danger.

“I admit it was my intention to kill the deceased. A reasonable person in my position would have foreseen [she] might die if I stabbed [her] several times in the chest and back with half of a scissor. I did not have any defence in law for my actions.

“I regret what I did and ask this court for mercy and leniency,” he said.

The state accepted the guilty plea statement and did not put questions to the man. It confirmed “the state is calling no more witnesses”.

Instead, the state brought a postmortem report, a photo album of various photos of the wounds on MCM and a report that the woman was pregnant at the time.

Three victim impact statements from his three children were also brought by the state where the children expressed the devastating effect of their father killing their mother, and that he killed her in a “brutal fashion in full view of the children”.

Prosecutors argued there were no “substantial and compelling circumstances” that called for a lesser sentence than life imprisonment, the minimum sentence prescribed.

In his defence, TEM’s lawyers argued that as he pleaded guilty, he can be rehabilitated and has remorse for the murder. This constituted “substantial and compelling circumstances” for the court to deviate from the minimum sentence and impose a lesser sentence. The man was also a first-time offender and the children lived with MCM’s family.

After considering these submissions, the court sentenced TEM to life imprisonment.

However, in the appeal trial, acting judges Laubscher and Scarrot said planning or premeditation involved the prior, rational planning and consideration of committing the crime by scheming or designing a plan in advance to commit such a crime.

The [guilty plea] statement of the appellant contained no proof of a rational planning and/or consideration of committing the murder to conclude it was designed and planned. Instead, it was clear from the guilty plea statement that the crime was on the spur of the moment, said the judges.

“The statement admits the murder of the deceased but does not contain any facts or proof that the appellant planned the murder and/or rationally considered the timing or the method of the murder in advance to its execution, or that the murder was committed in the execution of a scheme or a design in advance. The appellant states the murder was committed in a fit of rage because he lost his temper.

“As such, there was no evidence before the trial court that the murder of the deceased — heinous as it was — was 'planned' or 'premeditated'. The element of planning and/or premeditation as included in the charge against the appellant was not proven by the state. As the elements of planning or premeditation were not addressed in the [guilty plea] statement on which the conviction was based, there was no basis for a conviction of planned or premeditated murder,” the court ruled.

As the state could not prove the murder was planned or premeditated, the court should have sentenced the man to the minimum of 15 years' imprisonment.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act states a regional court may not impose a sentence exceeding the prescribed minimum term by more than five years.

“The trial court’s jurisdiction as to sentence in this matter was statutorily restricted to imposing a term of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years. The trial court exceeded this statutory jurisdictional limit in sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life.”

The court upheld the appeal and set aside the life sentence by replacing it with a 20-year imprisonment sentence to date from July 17 2023, the date on which he was sentenced by the regional court.

TimesLIVE