Coert Kruger jr (30).
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has announced its intention of appealing a ruling which saw 51-year-old Vanderbijlpark man Coert Johannes Kruger, who shot and killed his son after allegedly mistaking him for an intruder, released with a warning.
The NPA says the sentence of caution and discharge imposed on Kruger is “shockingly inappropriate”, adding that it has “successfully applied for leave to appeal the sentence”.
“The accused shot and killed his own son, Coert Johannes Kruger Junior, who was on the roof of his grandmother’s house on the evening of March 22 2019,” says the authority in a statement.
“He pleaded guilty to a charge of murder and explained that he reacted to an alarm activation at his mother’s house (grandmother to the deceased) and met with a security guard from the Security Company that called him earlier.
READ MORE: Dad who killed son after mistaking him for a burglar freed after murder conviction
“After an investigation, the accused and the security guard located a person on the roof and he immediately shot at him, only to realise at a later stage that it was his own son.”
The NPA then explains which grounds it is appealing the sentence on, explaining that “the grounds for the State to appeal are only limited to a question of law which can be misinterpreted, misdirected or misapplied”.
The prosecuting authority feels the magistrate is guilty of misdirection by not considering the recent case of an Ennerdale man who was sentenced to ten years in prison, suspended for five years on condition he doesn’t commit a similar offence, for similarly shooting and killing his son in an alleged accident.
“The accused in that matter fell asleep in the vehicle whilst waiting for his son who attended extra lessons at Fred Norman High School and was awakened by his son’s knock on the window but mistakenly shot his son, thinking that he was being robbed of his vehicle.
READ MORE: NPA welcomes suspended sentence of Ennerdale father who accidentally shot his son
“The great disparity in the two sentences under similar circumstances, both in the Gauteng Division, does not augur well for legal precedent,” said the NPA.
According to the authority, the principle of stare decisis in law means that the law as applied in one case must be considered in cases which follow in which the facts are similar.
For this reason, the NPA “could not leave this matter unchallenged”.
“The appeal will be enrolled and the date for the hearing will be communicated in due course,” the statement concludes.
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.