Sandra is a 16-year-old orphan living with her 73-year-old aunt Hilda. She has had several run ins

with the law since her parents died seven years ago. At the age of 11, she was arrested on two

separate occasions: The first time for being in possession of dagga and a second time, for theft.

She could not be prosecuted on both occasions because she lacked the necessary criminal

capacity to appreciate the consequences of her actions. On both occasions, the magistrate

referred her for counselling to a home for troubled children. It did not make a difference in her

behaviour. Since turning 14, her criminal activities have become worse. She was arrested on three

separate occasions since then for the theft of goods worth less than R 300. On all three occasions,

she was referred to a diversion programme in an attempt to rehabilitate her and re-integrate her

as a productive member, into society. She does not have a criminal record yet. In her most recent

crime, she broke a beer bottle, held it to the throat of a 13-year-old girl and stole her watch. The

magistrate, before whom she appeared, found her guilty. The prosecutor in the matter is adamant

that Sandra is a danger to society and argues that she should get direct imprisonment.

You believe that there is still a chance of Sandra being rehabilitated, especially in the light of her

youth. You argue that she should rather be sent on a diversion programme again or alternatively

sent to a child and youth care centre. Use the FIRAC model to put your arguments before the

court.

Refer to

S v

Bridge1997 (2) SACR 518 (C) and

S v Anderson

1964 (3) SA 494 (A),

which you

can find on Jutastat

as case authority as well as the legislation below when formulating your

argument