A Durban father, sentenced to three years in prison for theft and fraud while working at Avis Rent A Car, has lost his appeal against his sentence.
|||Durban - A Durban father, sentenced to three years in prison for theft and fraud while working at Avis Rent A Car, has lost his appeal against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Sadhasivan Nolan Chetty pleaded guilty in the Durban Regional Court in 2010 to 49 counts of theft and 94 counts of fraud. He was sentenced to six years in jail. Half the term was suspended for three years.
His appeal against the sentence to the Pietermaritzburg High Court was dismissed, as was his application for leave to appeal. His appeal reached the Supreme Court of Appeal as it was granted on petition. But yesterday Acting Judge Clive Plasket, with two judges concurring, dismissed it.
Chetty’s grounds for appeal was that the magistrate misdirected himself by sentencing him without waiting for the probation officer’s report on whether Chetty was the primary caregiver of his daughter, who was two years old at the time. Chetty argued the magistrate called for the report but later decided it wasn’t necessary.
Chetty was employed as a clerk by Avis Rent A Car. “He took advantage of this position to steal cash” which ranged from R144.80 to R10 290.14 belonging to Avis and “which he was supposed to bank on its behalf”, said the acting judge.
This was during March and May 2008. The total amount stolen was just over R70 000.
The 94 fraud convictions arose from Chetty’s using for his own purposes vehicles that had been returned early by Avis clients, or allowing family and friends to use them. He told Avis the vehicles were still being used by clients. This happened between 2007 and 2008 and caused Avis a potential prejudice of nearly R480 000.
The acting judge said the magistrate had instructed that a probation officer’s report, particularly about the care of Chetty’s two-year-old daughter, be furnished. When the matter resumed, the report was not available. But the magistrate proceeded and explained he no longer considered it necessary because Chetty’s attorney had provided the information. He had personal knowledge of the integrity of Chetty’s attorney and was prepared to accept the facts he had placed before him.
Judge Plasket said that from the information placed before the magistrate, Chetty was not his daughter’s primary caregiver. He and his wife lived with their daughter in the same premises as his parents.
Chetty’s attorney had argued Chetty’s wife had been injured in a car accident 11 years before and was disabled and that Chetty was responsible for most of his daughter’s care. The attorney conceded Chetty’s extended family was able to help with the child’s care.
“While one has sympathy for children in situations such as this, their emotional needs cannot trump the duty on the State properly to punish criminal misconduct where the appropriate sentence is impri-sonment,” Judge Plasket said.
The judges found no merit in the argument that the magistrate erred in sentencing Chetty without the probation officer’s report.
noelene.barbeau@inl.co.za
Daily News