Kinderverkragter dalk vry / Child rapist could soon be free

Date: 06 February 2015 By: Isabel Venter

[Click here to read English story]

Die drie lewenslange vonnisse wat die berugte oud-lugmag sersant van Louis Trichardt opgelê is, omdat hy sy minderjarige stiefdogtertjie verkrag het, is deur die Hooggeregshof tersyde gestel nadat die man se appèlaansoek geslaag het.

Regter Ferdi Preller het in sy uitspraak gesê die man se verhoor was om meer as een rede “blatant onregverdig” en dat sy straf te hard was. Hy het die bevel op 27 Januarie uitgereik in die Noord-Gautengse Hooggeregshof, waarvan die Zoutpansberger ‘n afskrif bekom het. 

Omdat die meisie steeds minderjarig is, mag die man se identiteit nie gepubliseer word nie weens die seksuele aard van die misdrywe. Die meisietjie was ten tye van die misdrywe 11 jaar oud gewees, en die man was reeds drie jaar lank met haar ma getroud. Hy is intussen van die ma geskei.  

Die man is in Junie 2011 drie lewenslange vonnisse opgelê, nadat landdros Marie Viljoen van die Louis Trichardt Streekshof bevind het dat hy die meisietjie oraal, vaginaal en anaal verkrag het. Buiten vir die verkragtings, het die man ook foto’s met sy selfoonkamera geneem van sy penis in die meisie se mond, naakfoto’s waar sy eksplisiet poseer en pornografiese materiaal aan haar gewys waar hy seks met haar ma het.

Derhalwe is die man skuldig bevind op onder meer ‘n klag van die vervaardiging van kinderpornografie, een klag van die vertoon van kinderpornografie aan ‘n minderjarige en die besit van kinderpornografie. Hy is effektief tot 85 jaar gevonnis, wat hy in Junie 2011 begin uitdien het.

Regter Preller het, op grond van die man se aansoek, bevind dat die man net skuldig is op die klag van orale verkragting. Die oorblywende twee verkragtingklagtes het Preller verander na ‘n mindere klag van seksuele aanranding.

Die man is steeds skuldig aan die kinderpornografie klagtes. Hierdie en die ander drie klagtes is saamgevoeg vir die doeleindes van ‘n nuwe vonnisoplegging. Regter Preller het die lewensvonnisse tersyde gestel en die man gevonnis tot 10 jaar gevangenisstraf, waarvan vyf jaar vir ‘n periode van vyf jaar opgeskort is. Dit beteken dat die man effektief vyf jaar tronkstraf opgelê is, en nou alreeds vrygelaat mag word.

Regter Preller was van mening dat die man ‘n eerste oortreder was, en dat al die misdrywe gepleeg is met die doel dat hy uiteindelik volledige seksuele omgang met die meisie sou kon hê met haar toestemming. “Vir dié rede is dit gepas dat al die klagtes waarvan hy skuldig bevind is, saamgevoeg moet word vir vonnis,” het die regter gesê.

Verder is Regter Preller, in sy woorde, oortuig dat die man onregverdig vervolg is en het die blaam voor die deur gelê van die polisie, landdros Viljoen, die aanklaer, die ma van die meisie en die meisie self.

Hy het landdros Viljoen uitgekryt  oor haar “ontstellende gedrag.” Volgens Preller het Viljoen ‘n blinde oog gedraai na die detail van die getuienis voor die hof en was sy bevooroordeeld en het maklik tot haar eie gevolgtrekkings gekom.

Regter Preller het ook verder die polisie aangespreek oor die manier wat hulle die saak teen die man ondersoek het en gesê die aanklaer het opsetlik belangrike inligting weerhou wat die man se verdediging kon help, waarvan die landdros alles geweet het en tog geïgnoreer het.

Die polisie en Staat het ses foto’s as bewyse ingedien dat die meisie drie keer verkrag is. Preller het net twee van die foto’s aanvaar, en gesê dat die ander te onduidelik is en nie die man se skuld bo alle redelike twyfel bewys het nie. Hy het ook gesê dat die foto’s net geslagsdele wys, en nie die meisie of die man daarop geïdentifiseer kan word nie. “Dit is dalk moontlik dat hierdie pornografiese materiaal is wat die man van elders afgelaai het.”

Rakende die meisie se getuienis het Preller bevind dat nie alles wat sy gesê het vir die waarheid aangeneem moet word nie. “Dit is nie duidelik uit haar [die meisie se] getuienis dat sy meegedoen het uit vrees of gedreig is [om mee te doen aan die man se versoeke] nie,” het Preller gesê.

“Dit is ook duidelik op die twee foto’s – waarop haar gesigsuitdrukkings gesien kan word  - dat daar geen teken van enige angs, verleentheid, afkeur of enige ander negatiewe emosie by haar te bespeur is nie. Hierop gebaseer heers daar ‘n sterk vermoede dat die meisie dalk nie ‘n onwillige party aan die misdrywe was nie,” het Preller bygevoeg.

Verder het Preller gesê, gebaseer op die meisie se getuienis dat die man haar nooit ten volle vaginaal en anaal gepenetreer het nie, sy nie verkrag is nie maar eerder seksueel aangerand is. “Sy het getuig dat die man sy penis net teen haar geslagsdele gesit het, en dat ‘n dokter ook later bevind het dat sy nog steeds ‘n maagd is.”

Die plaaslike hof het verder ook nie die man se omstandighede in ag geneem nie, het Preller bevind. Die man is volgens ‘n sielkundige verslag gemolesteer toe hy ‘n kind was, en het sy werk verloor as gevolg van die saak teen hom. “Ek is van mening dat die man genoeg gestraf is en sy les geleer het, en daarom is ‘n ligter vonnis gepas. ‘n Opgeskorte vonnis is steeds nodig om te verseker dat hy nie weer oortree nie.”

Intussen verneem die Zoutpansberger dat die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag (NVG) met groot teleurstelling verneem het van Regter Preller se uitspraak. Daar word verwag dat die NVG, nadat hulle die hofstukke bestudeer en ‘n opinie gevorm het, ‘n appèlaansoek sal bring teen die uitspraak.  

Leser Kommentaar

“Hoe kan regstelsel ons so faal?” (12 Februarie 2015)

 uitspraak. 

English

The three life sentences of the former Air Force Base sergeant of Louis Trichardt, who had raped his 11-year-old stepdaughter, have been set aside on appeal.

Judge Ferdi Preller, in his ruling said that the man’s trial was, on more than one account, “blatantly unfair” and his sentence was too harsh. He passed judgement on the appeal on 27 January in the North Gauteng High Court, of which the Zoutpansberger managed to obtain a copy.

Because the girl is still a minor, the man's identity may not be published due to the sexual nature of the offenses. The girl was only 11 years old at the time of the offences, and the man had already been married to her mother for three years. Since then the mother has also divorced the man.  

The man was sentenced to three life sentences in June 2011, after magistrate Marie Viljoen, of the Louis Trichardt Regional Court; found that he had raped the little girl orally, vaginally and anally. Furthermore the man also took pornographic photos of her, posing nude and with his penis in her mouth, and exposed her to homemade images of him and her mother having sex.

The man was also convicted on single counts of producing child pornography, displaying pornography to a minor and the possession of child pornography. He was, effectively, sentenced to 85 years imprisonment, which he began serving in June 2011.

Based on the man’s application, Judge Preller said that he could only find him guilty on the charge of oral rape. The remaining two counts of rape convictions he replaced with convictions on lesser charges of sexual assault in terms with the Sexual Offences Act (Act 32 of 2007).

The child pornography charges were confirmed and he is still guilty thereof. His sentence was dramatically reduced. Judge Preller replaced the man’s sentences of three life terms with ten years’ imprisonment with a five year effective prison sentence, backdated to June. This means that the man may already be released.

Judge Preller said that the man was a first offender, and that all the offenses were committed with the “intent that he [the man] finally complete sexual intercourse with the girl with her full consent.”

“For that reason it seems appropriate that all the counts of which he has been convicted should be taken together for the purpose of sentence.  “I do not think that the appellant is a hardened criminal and believe that he has more than learnt the necessary lesson from the time that he has already spent in prison, but there should be a suspended sentence hanging over his head to prevent a possible repetition.”

He further added that the offences committed by the man constitute a single course of conduct, probably committed with the intention of eventually having full sexual intercourse with the girl with her consent.

Judge Preller further critised magistrate Viljoen for her failure to pay attention to details, for easily jumping to conclusions and for deliberately closing her eyes to important information, which led to serious misdirections and a “blatant unfair trail.” He labelled her approach in the matter as “disturbing” and said that she had seemed to be unaware that a criminal trial should be a quest for the truth; and that she had lost sight of the essential requirement of impartiality.

The judge also lashed out towards the police for their “sloppy” compiling of evidence, and the prosecution for hiding information that would have assisted the man’s defence, to which Preller said the magistrate was a knowing party.

The police and State submitted six photographs to proof that the little girl had been raped three times. Preller said that only two of the photographs, where the girl’s face could clearly be identified, proved the man’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He said that the other photographs were either only of genitals (which could not be proved to belong to either the man or girl) or were of such a poor quality that they should be disregarded as proof of rape. “

Regarding the girl's testimony, Preller concluded that not everything she testified in court should be regarded as the truth. "It is not clear from her [the girl's] testimony that she was fearful, or had been threatened [to partake in the men's requests]," said Preller said.

“That also appears from the two photographs in the exhibits on which her facial expression can be seen which shows no sign of fear, anguish, embarrassment, disgust or any other negative emotion,” said Preller. “Based on this, there is a strong suspicion that the victim [girl] was not an unwilling participant in the events.”

Moreover, he said that the girl had testified that the man never fully penetrated her, and that she was therefore not raped but rather sexually assaulted. “She testified that the man only put his penis against her buttocks, and that the doctor found that she was still a virgin.”

Preller accepted in mitigation that the man had been abused and maltreated as a child, was sodomised at boarding school, had lost his family and job, and that his deeds apparently had no negative impact on the girl, but that magistrate Viljoen turned a blind eye to this.

In the meantime, the Zoutpansberger has learned that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is not happy with Judge Preller’s ruling. They will take the case on review, and after forming an opinion on the facts, determine if there are grounds for an appeal against the judgment. 

Viewed: 1422

Isabel Venter

Isabel joined the Zoutpansberger and Limpopo Mirror in 2009 as a reporter. She holds a BA Degree in Communication Sciences from the University of South Africa. Her beat is mainly crime and court reporting.

More photos...