REPORTABLE 
CASE NO.: CC 21/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
THE STATE

AND

MICHAEL UIRAB

SENTENCE

[2] The accused did not testify in mitigation. He also did not call any witness. His personal circumstances were placed before this Court by his legal representative from the bar.

[4] In deciding what a proper sentence should be, the Court will consider a triad of factors namely the offender, the crime and the interest of society. At the same time regard must also be had to the objectives of punishment namely prevention, deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. Although the court must endeavour to strike a balance between these factors, the circumstances of a case might dictate that one or more of the factors must be emphasized at the expense of the others (S v Van Wyk 1993 NR 426 at 448). The personal circumstances of the offender play an important role and must not be overlooked because it is ultimately the accused that must be punished for the crime committed. Because the personal circumstances of people differ as well as the facts of each case being unique, sentences for similar offences will differ.

S v Tjiho 1991 NR 361 (HC).

[6] As far as the nature of the offences committed is concerned, murder is a very serious offence and relatively prevalent in Namibia. The offence of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice is also prevalent. Although it cannot be disputed on the available evidence that the deceased was the aggressor, the accused exceeded by far the boundaries of self-defence. As already found in the judgment on conviction, the deceased suffered three stab wounds to the back, some of which penetrated the lungs causing perforation to the right lung and resulting in the collapse of the lungs. Each of these stab wounds was about 3 centimetres deep. There was a laceration in the head with the length of 4-5 centimetres reaching the skull and a cut to the neck, which severed the neck. As the accused stated in his plea that he could see that the deceased was "reasonably intoxicated" it was gratuitous of him to use the excessive force.
[7] Women in Namibia are being killed day and night by men who claim to be their lovers. They live like slaves and are subjected to all forms of unimaginable atrocities. One of the ways through which they could be protect from these evil-doers is when the Court imposes deterrent sentences in order to send a message not only to the offenders but to prospective criminals as well.
[8] It would probably be an understatement to say that society abhors and resents what the accused person has done. It was not only the deceased who lost her life but her unborn baby as well, although there is no evidence that the accused was aware that the deceased was pregnant. Every law-abiding citizen is concerned with regard to violent crimes, especially murders and rapes against defenceless women and children. The Court must play its role of imposing robust sentences where it is appropriate to show society's abhorrence of violent crimes committed especially against women.
[9] Having considered all the personal circumstances of the accused, the time he has spent in custody awaiting trial, the seriousness and prevalence of the offences, the circumstances in which these offences were committed, as well as the interest of the society, I am of the opinion that these offences must attract stiffer sentences.

[10]    In the result the accused is sentenced as follows:

SHIVUTE, J