Murderer unrepentant during sentencing
Gallery stunned Henning's behaviour in the dock.
Morris Henning, 67, who was found guilty of murdering the 43-year-old common-law husband of his daughter, Dylan Vos, on 6 February 2016, had to be reprimanded several times for his behaviour in the dock during sentencing yesterday (20 September).
When Henning took the stand to testify about mitigating circumstances against his sentence, he had several outbursts. The Defence argued that mitigating factors were his age, the fact that he was a first-time offender and that he suffered from gout and high blood pressure. The final question asked was whether he would like to own a firearm again, to which he unbelievably replied, “Yes”.
Read the initial article here: Man shoots nephew in front of grandchildren
This did not sit well with State Prosecutor Paseka Temeki and before he started questioning Henning about the mitigating circumstances, he told Henning, “You should not have owned a firearm in the first place”. Temeki told Henning that both his brothers, his sister and his daughter testified that he was short-tempered and self-centred, to which he replied, referring to his daughter, “She was probably full of dagga”. Temeki then told him he could not make such statements but this was not the end of the friction between the two. When asked whether he ever tried to reach out to the deceased’s family while on bail he bluntly told the court that he did not because he did not have transport and sarcastically added, “What, did I have to walk?”
Temeki then wanted to know why none of his siblings wanted to accommodate him after he complained of being abused by the deceased, but Henning had no answer. The Prosecutor then pointed out that Henning’s brother, Henry, said he was “troublesome”. Henning argued this, somewhere along the line using the word “s**t”. Temeki told him to not use “that kind of language in court”. He added, “With that attitude I will never allow you to ever own a firearm again”, before asking him what had caused his hearing disability. “Was it from when you discharged the shotgun and killed the deceased,” he wanted to know from Henning. Henning again barked, “Yes,” but quickly added, “when he killed himself” (referring to the fact that he had allegedly warned Vos he was going to shoot him. Vos then told him to go ahead and Henning shot him. Henning also later claimed Vos shot himself, but firearm experts proved beyond doubt that it was impossible for Vos to self-inflict a stomach wound with a shot gun in the situation in question).
Also Read: Update: Brother of Georginia shooting victim speaks out
Temeki then pointed out that Henning’s medical conditions were common, even in young people and that they did not constitute mitigating circumstances. He also asked Henning if he drank, to which he answered, “Once in a blue moon,” but said he did not have money to buy alcohol. When Temeki again asked him why he drank brandy when he had high blood pressure, he angrily barked, “How could I drink if I did not have money?” Temeki then told Henning that he was not at liberty to ask Temeki questions. He was also reprimanded by Magistrate Delize Smith at this stage, who told him to stay calm. “Why are you swearing,” asked the Prosecutor, “are you sober now?”.
Temeki continued, wanting to know how Henning felt about the fact that he had left his grandchildren without a father and the deceased’s family without a son. Henning again answered bluntly, “That is bad”.
The State Prosecutor then requested the minimum of 15 years direct imprisonment, saying, Henning “needs serious rehabilitation to be reintegrated into society. He showed no remorse to the deceased’s family or his own daughter. His aggressiveness in court clearly showed what type of person we are dealing with here”.
Smith then started with her sentencing. She said the court had to be merciful and not try to break the guilty, and had to find a balance between the person’s circumstances and the interests of society. She then spoke at length about Henning’s past before going on to his punishment.
“If the court had found [the killing] was premeditated, which I still believe it was, I would have sentenced you to 25 years.
You were adamant that ‘Today is the day, whatever he does to you, you will do to him twice’. Even if he had abused you before, when you shot him he was standing with his cigarettes and lighter in his hand”. (At this stage Henning rolled his eyes at Smith).
“The probation officer said you had no insight into what you have done; that you were almost casual about it. Usually the accused in the stand pleads for forgiveness but you showed you had no remorse. The court got the impression that you are content with what you have done. The probation officer interviewed many people. You painted a picture that the deceased was a terrible person yet the other people that were interviewed, including your own family, painted the picture of a wonderful man,” said Smith.
She explained to him that the court could sentence him to 15 years plus an extra 5 years if aggravating circumstances warranted it but said he would probably have a harder time in jail due to his age. She also said that with compelling evidence to support a shorter sentence she could impose one but that he showed no remorse. She pointed out that he was not a typical frail 67-year-old but showed on the stand that he was violent and aggressive by taking on the prosecutor. “Age in this case is not a substantial reason to impose a lesser sentence,” she concluded, before sentencing him to 15 years’ direct imprisonment.
She told the family that they could have input if parole was ever considered.
Do you perhaps have more information pertaining to this story? Email us at roodepoortrecord@caxton.co.za (remember to include your contact details) or phone us on 011 955 1130.
For free daily local news on the West Rand, also visit our sister newspaper websites
Remember to visit our Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages to let your voice be heard!
