A man who beat to death a suspected thief — breaking a brick in the process and using a golf club — has had his life sentence for murder reduced on appeal to 20 years in jail.

A full bench of the high court in Pretoria said in a judgment passed last week that the trial court misdirected itself by not ordering a pre-sentencing report and was therefore not in a position to exercise proper judicial sentencing discretion.

Being sentenced to life imprisonment means one will only be considered for parole after serving 25 years behind bars, while other offenders can be considered for parole after serving half of their sentences. 

The offence for which Phillip Sithole, 40, was convicted occurred on June 15 2018 at Ekangala in the City of Tshwane, when he and another man killed Thabo Sibanyoni.

Sibanyoni was suspected of having stolen a water pump and battery from Sithole’s vehicle. When confronted, Sibanyoni denied knowing anything about the stolen items.

Sithole started slapping Sibanyoni without saying anything, then picked up and threw bricks at him. Holding a brick in his hand, he hit him three times on the head until the brick broke.

After trying to run away, Sithole grabbed and kicked him several times as he lay on the ground. Sibanyoni was taken to his father’s house where he indicated the battery could be found, but this was not the case.

He was taken to Sithole’s home and tied to a pole with rope and wires. Sithole went inside, returned with a golf club and assaulted Sibanyoni all over his body.

After pleading guilty and being sentenced to life in 2019 for the murder, Sithole applied for leave to appeal the sentence.

Sithole’s lawyer said the sentence of life imprisonment was inappropriate and induced a sense of shock, as it was more than the 15 years’ imprisonment sentence normally imposed on offenders who had direct intent to murder.

His lawyer said the trial court erred in finding that Sithole was not a suitable candidate for rehabilitation, but conceded the prolonged assaults were horrific.

The prosecution opposed the appeal and submitted that the sentence imposed was fair and appropriate under the circumstances.

In its judgment reducing the sentence, the court said if one considered the context in which the crime was committed, as well as the circumstances of the appellant, a 38-year-old first offender who pleaded guilty to the charges and was involved in the development of youth in the community of Ekangala, a pre-sentence report would have helped the court better understand the offender and reasons for the crime.

“In the absence of a pre-sentence report, the trial court was not placed in a better position to exercise proper judicial sentencing discretion.”

TimesLIVE