Cheryl van Zyl

Cheryl van Zyl, 43, stood in the dock as regional court magistrate Ignatius Kitching sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment in terms of section 2761i of the Criminal Procedure ActIt was only when her attorney, Henry van Breda, interpreted the sentence – telling her it meant she would spend 10 months in jail and the remainder under correctional supervision.
Her husband, Steven Van Zyl, family and friends, who were equally dismayed after hearing her fate, hugged and held her hands as she sat with her head bowed, waiting to be escorted to the holding cells.
In handing down sentence, Kitching said “white collar” crime was on the increase, clearly evident by the fact that this week alone, he had two similar cases on his court roll.
He said as in Van Zyl’s case – she had been employed at Selborne for 15 years – most offenders were in a position of trust, and had stolen huge amounts from their employers. “This sentence should act as a deterrent to other would-be offenders. This type of crime is on the increase, and the courts need to send out a stern warning,” said Kitching, referring to Van Breda’s plea for his client to get three years’ correctional supervision as a “not appropriate” sentence.
Last year Van Zyl pleaded guilty to four counts of stealing R567883 from the school’s coffers over a period of about four years.
As the school’s book-keeper she was responsible for receiving money on behalf of the school, issuing receipts and banking funds.
At first, she said she stole the money because she was experiencing financial difficulties, but later said the stolen money went towards feeding her gambling addiction.
Kitching said that while he took into account all pre-sentence reports – including that Van Zyl was a first offender who acknowledged her thieving ways, that she co-operated with police, showed genuine remorse and had started paying back the money – aggravating circumstances by far outweighed mitigating factors.
Selborne College had earlier submitted a letter to the court stating that they would not like to see Van Zyl go to jail, provided she repaid the stolen money.
Van Zyl’s current employer also stated that he would give her a substantial increase, allowing her to repay the school about R4000 a month.
But Kitching agreed with state prosecutor Elna Smit that Van Zyl had, over a prolonged period of time, used meticulous, “undetectable” methods to steal from the school, and never willingly came forward to expose her deeds.
He said had it not been for the fact that she had lost her house in her bid to repay the school, he would have without doubt given her a lengthier prison term.