About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZAWCHC 32
|
|
Jantjies v S (A273/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 32 (9 March 2020)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case
No: A273/19
In
the matter between:
MICHAEL
JANTJIES
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
Coram
:
Mabindla-Boqwana J
et
Mayosi AJ
Delivered
:
9 March 2020
JUDGMENT
MAYOSI
AJ
Introduction
1
On 5 June 2019 the appellant was convicted
of three counts of rape in the Vredenburg Regional Court. On 19
June 2019 he was
sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in respect of
count 1; 8 years in prison for count 2 of which 4 years was to run
concurrently
with the sentence imposed for count 1; and 8 years
imprisonment for count 3 of which 4 years was to run concurrently
with the sentence
imposed for count 1. Effectively he was
sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
2
On 17 July 2019 the Magistrate granted the
appellant leave to appeal against his conviction on the three counts
of rape.
Evidence
3
The complainant testified that she was a
school teacher who met the appellant on Facebook in August or
September 2014. The appellant
introduced himself to the complainant
as a private investigator and a police officer, and after
communicating with each other on
Facebook the appellant asked the
complainant for her cell number after which they continued “chatting”
via
WhatsApp.
4
The appellant and the complainant met in
person for the first time either on 24 December 2014 when the
appellant went to visit the
complainant at her house. The
appellant, however, testified that they met on 24 December 2014.
Nothing turns on this difference
in the date on which they met.
When they did meet in person they got along immediately and the
appellant left the complainant’s
house the following morning.
Thereafter they saw each other almost daily, and would sometimes take
drives to the beach or
to Vredenburg where the complainant had
friends.
5
According to the complainant, from the time
she met the appellant she loved him as a friend, and their
relationship never developed
into a romantic or sexual one. The
appellant on the other hand often professed that he was in love with
her. Whether their
relationship was sexual or not, it is clear
from the record that from the time they met until the incident
occurred on 7 March
2015, they were affectionate to each other and
spent much time together. Their affection for each other was
evident from
various email communications exchanged between them,
including an email sent by the complainant to the appellant on 13
February
2015 that was meant to be a Valentine’s Day message,
in which she expressed what appeared on the face of it to be deep
feelings
for him.
6
When they went to Vredenburg they stayed at
the St Helena Bay Hotel. They went to Vredenburg about six
times from the time
they met until the incident occurred on 7 March
2015. According to the complainant, whilst they would share a room on
these trips,
they never slept on the same bed. The complainant
felt safe in the company of the appellant as he had told her he was a
police
officer.
7
On Friday 6 March 2015 they drove to
Vredenburg to spend the weekend. The appellant had some business to
attend to there. They booked
a room with two single beds that were
separated by a small bedside cabinet placed between them. She
fell asleep in her bed
on the evening of 6 March 2015.
8
On 7 March 2015, in the morning, the
complainant was awoken by the appellant getting into bed next to
her. She asked him what
he was doing and he told her to lie
still. He put his arm under her neck and held her wrist with his
hand. She felt his erect penis
against her and she wanted to get
up. He kept telling her to lie still. The
complainant tried to get up but the
appellant pinned her down. He got
hold of her other arm and managed to turn her onto her stomach, then
proceeded to lie flat on
top of the complainant. He removed her
panties until they were halfway down her legs. She felt an
excruciating pain
as the appellant penetrated her anus with his
penis. She did not consent to this, or to any of the other sexual
acts that followed.
He asked her if she had never had anal sex, even
with her ex-husband to which she answered no. The appellant told the
complainant
that in that case, he was taking her virginity.
9
The complainant pleaded with the appellant
to stop. The appellant continued thrusting with his penis in and out
of her anus, telling
her that he needed to get his holy sperm inside
her anus. The complainant was having difficulty breathing, and she
felt pain down
her legs and up her back. The appellant allowed
her to take her arms out from under her chest so that she could
breathe.
She could not push him off her as he was big and strong and
lying flat on top of her. She asked him if he did not want to use
Vaseline
or lotion to ease the pain, or if she could be allowed to
bend her knees so that it would not be as painful. The appellant said
no and that the experience was about the pain. The complainant felt
that she was going to pass out and had to consciously prevent
herself
from doing so. After about fifteen to thirty minutes of this
anal thrusting, the appellant got up, went to the bathroom
and took a
shower. As he was in the bathroom the complainant was unable to
get up and attempt to leave as her legs could
not move. She was in
pain.
10
When he came back into the bedroom, he was
masturbating. He said he needed his holy sperm inside the
complainant’s vagina.
He turned her around onto her back, got
on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and began thrusting
movements for five
to ten minutes. He then said he needed her to
swallow his holy sperm. He shifted his body and sat across the
complainant’s
waist, with his knees on either side of her. He
pulled the complainant up by her hair and inserted his penis in her
mouth. He proceeded
to thrust it in and out of her mouth until she
felt a warm liquid inside her mouth. He told her to swallow it.
He returned
to the positon of sitting across the complainant’s
waist, and as he did so he shook his ejaculating penis across her
chest,
rubbing his semen on her after which he told the complainant
that his holy sperm would now soak into her.
11
Thereafter the appellant took a
handkerchief out of his shirt pocket, first wiped the complainant’s
vagina with it and then
his penis before he folded it up and put it
back in his pocket. He told the complainant that every time he
thought of her, he would
smell the handkerchief.
12
The appellant then told the complainant to
shower. She could not move. He opened the water in the shower and
walked the complainant
to the shower. She stood under the
running water and cried. Whilst she was there he started packing
their bags, told her
to hurry as they were leaving. When she came out
of the shower she was still crying. The appellant licked her tears
off. They got
into the car and drove back to Cape Town. The appellant
testified that she was in shock and disbelief.
13
Upon arrival at her house, she got out of
the car and retrieved her bags. When she walked past the appellant’s
driver’s
door he grabbed her left arm, took a blade that he had
taken from the cubby hole and made a cut with it on complainant’s
wrist. He then proceeded to lick the complainant’s blood
and uttered words to the effect that ‘
now
I am yours and you are mine.’
14
After the incident the complainant
testified that she experienced a total mental shutdown which was
later explained to her by her
psychiatrist as some dissociative
disorder where the brain shuts off to protect the body. She did
not immediately tell anyone
about the incident. She thought it was
her fault and that she had brought this upon herself.
15
After the incident the complainant was off
sick for a few day; she had abdominal pain and anal bleeding but her
mind did not link
these symptoms to the rape. She would not leave the
house after the rape and had no desire to shower or eat. Her daughter
had to
force her to eat. The complainant testified that she craved
the comfort of her mother and to be held by her.
16
On the Monday or Tuesday after the
incident, the complainant went to see a doctor about the abdominal
pain and anal bleeding.
She did not tell this doctor about the
rape as to her mind no such thing had happened. The doctor
noted that the complainant’s
blood pressure was elevated and
observed symptoms of stress. The doctor prescribed the complainant
medication for spastic colon
and furnished her with the details of a
psychologist to deal with her stress.
17
Also on that Monday or Tuesday after the
incident the appellant came to the complainant’s house, to tell
her that a relative
of his who worked for the housing department had
told him that there were cancellations, presumably on the Council
housing list,
and he was ready to proceed with the houses for the
complainant’s children. The complainant and the appellant
had discussed
the prospect of him assisting her to secure houses for
her children sometime before the incident of 7 March. What he came to
tell
her then was that in light of the cancellations, she could
secure the houses if she gave him money for the deposit and transfer
costs. This had to be done by Thursday. The complainant then
put pressure on her children to raise the money. They
took out
loans and managed to raise R50 000.
18
On Friday 13 March the appellant asked the
complainant to drive him to town so that he could pay over the
housing money where it
was required, at a place located on the Third
Floor in Golden Acre Building. The appellant got out of
the car with
the R50 000, with the complainant waiting for him
in the car. He never returned, and after waiting for him the
entire
day, she gave up and went back home.
19
Later that same day, after the realisation
that she had been swindled by the appellant, the complainant
addressed an email to him
expressing, amongst other sentiments, her
deep disappointment at what he had done to her, and pleading with him
to return her children’s
money. On 15 March 2015 she
addressed two further emails to the appellant – the first
expressing her shock at
what he had done and pleading with him to pay
back the money; the second sounding resigned to her fate, and wishing
him well. In
his response the appellant said he would repay her the
money, and asked for the complainant’s bank account details.
This repayment never happened.
20
In the continuing emails she decided to
adopt the approach of pretending that she was still on good terms
with him in the hope that
this would appeal to his good nature and
cause him to return her children’s money. To this end, she
started writing loving
emails to him, to which he would respond.
These loving emails between them continued from 19 March, and they
interacted with each
other on these terms until 9 April 2015, with
her doing so in an effort to get her money back.
21
During March 2015, following a
housebreaking at her home, the complainant opened a case of
housebreaking and theft at the Lansdowne
Police Station. She
did not name the appellant as the person she suspected for this crime
at that stage, but afterwards,
on 24 August 2015, the complainant
reopened this case after she discovered that the appellant was in
possession of her cell phone.
22
The complainant’s mind had suppressed
the rape incident, until her birthday on 16 March 2015. At
school on that day
the school principal came to the complainant,
hugged her and wished her a happy birthday. When the school principal
put his arms
around her, the complainant experienced flashbacks from
the rape and ran to the teacher’s bathrooms where she found her
colleague
Ms Chantal Coetzee, and told her about the incident. This
is the first person that she told about the rape. The
complainant
was upset and crying. Ms Coetzee urged her to see a
psychologist. The complainant secured an appointment with the
psychologist
whose details she had obtained from her doctor, the
following day on 17 March 2015.
23
Ms Coetzee has since left South Africa and
lives overseas. Her affidavit was handed up as evidence at the
trial by agreement
between the parties. Ms Coetzee confirmed
that the complainant reported the incident to her.
24
On 15 April 2015 the complainant was
admitted to Kenilworth Clinic, a mental health facility. She
remained there until 14
May 2014 and whilst there she had no contact
with the appellant. The trove of email correspondence submitted
as evidence
confirmed this during this period. It was also
whilst she was at the Clinic that the complainant began to speak
about the
rape, with the psychologists and psychiatrists who were
treating her there.
25
At Kenilworth Clinic the complainant met a
fellow patient, Mr Johan Grobbelaar, a warrant officer in the South
African Police Service
(SAPS). He was admitted to the Clinic in
April 2015 for 21 days. After the complainant found out during a
group therapy session
that he was a police officer, she confided in
Mr Grobbelaar about the rape. In his evidence, Mr Grobbelaar
corroborated the complainant’s
description of the incident, as
well as the fact that it occurred at St Helena Bay Hotel as told to
him by the complainant. He
testified that she was visibly upset and
was crying when she recounted the incident to him. He convinced her
to report the matter
to SAPS. After he left the Clinic he made
contact with her and gave her the contact details of the branch in
Saldanha that dealt
with rape cases.
26
At first the complainant feared bringing a
rape case against the appellant because he was a police officer (or
so she thought),
and she feared that she would not be treated with
respect and dignity if she reported the case to the Lansdowne Police
Station.
Also she did not trust the criminal justice system and
for all these reasons she initially had no intention of reporting the
rape
at all. Her stay at the Kenilworth Clinic, where she
participated in various programmes and therapy sessions, empowered
her
to make the decision that she would not allow herself to be the
appellant’s victim.
27
After her discharge from Kenilworth Clinic
she reported the appellant’s disappearance with her R50 000
to the SAPS’s
Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation,
colloquially known as the Hawks. She made the Hawks aware of
the email correspondence
she had exchanged with the appellant. They
encouraged her to continue corresponding with him on the same
friendly terms, but cautioned
her against physical contact with the
appellant until their investigations were ripe. After the Hawks
completed their inquiry they
told her that they did not have a
mandate in the matter because they discovered that the appellant was
never a police officer.
The Hawks prepared the statements and handed
the matter over to the Lansdowne Police Station. A docket of
fraud was opened
in July 2015. On 20 August 2015 the appellant was
arrested for fraud.
28
On 1 September 2015 the complainant
attended at Victoria Hospital in Wynberg to be examined for injuries
connected to the rape.
The J88 was then completed. When
asked by the defence why she submitted herself for medical
examination only in September,
the complainant explained that after
the Hawks handed the dockets over to Lansdowne they were going to
arrange for her to be examined
for the purposes of the J88, and for
her statement to be taken. However, she refused to submit to
what she described as so
personal an examination at a time when she
had no faith in the police at Lansdowne Police Station. It was only
when an officer
from SAPS’s Family Violence, Child Protection
and Sexual Offences Unit (FCS) came to take her statement that she
agreed that
this officer could accompany her to the doctor for the
examination.
29
On 3 September 2015 she reported the rape
at the Pinelands Police Station. She laid a charge of rape
against the appellant
at the St Helena Police Station on 19 September
2015.
30
In his evidence the appellant denied that
he had raped the complainant. He denied that he was with her at
all on the weekend
of 6 to 8 March 2015. According to him, they
last went away together on 18 January 2015 because 19 January was his
birthday
and he booked a bungalow in Laneville. He testified
that he did not go away with her again after 19 January 2015 because
he felt guilty as he was in fact in a permanent relationship, and was
living with another woman.
31
His version was that he and the complainant
had a sexual relationship that began when they met on 24 December
2014 and continued
until March 2015. He testified that by the
time he was charged with the rape of the complainant he was already
in custody
for the fraud charge relating to the complainant’s
R50 000. His evidence was that he had gotten the money
from
her under false pretences, by convincing her that he could
arrange housing for her; and after he took the money he ended the
relationship
with the complainant and cut all ties with her.
32
The appellant testified that the
complainant’s rape complaint was false and was motivated by
hurt and anger on her part arising
from the fact that he had stolen
her money and ended their relationship. He testified that he
never loved the complainant
and was merely pursuing an affair with
her for the sole purpose of misleading her and stealing from her.
He conceded that
these actions were akin to the conduct of a con
artist.
Grounds
of appeal
33
The appellant’s main grounds of
appeal are that:
33.1
The complainant was a single witness, and
the court
a quo
erred in concluding that her testimony was clear and satisfactory in
every aspect;
33.2
The State failed to call the doctor who
examined the complainant in circumstances where the appellant denied
the rape; and
33.3
The State had failed to present real
evidence to prove that the complainant and the appellant were at St
Helena Bay Hotel.
34
The criticisms laid against the
complainant’s evidence are that:
34.1
Both hers and the appellant’s names
do not appear in the hotel register for the relevant period (6 and 7
March 2015).
34.2
Her opening of the rape charge against the
appellant was motivated by the fact that he had stolen money from her
and had broken
off their relationship.
34.3
Her version that she did not have a
romantic sexual relationship with the appellant ought to have been
rejected by the magistrate
for the following reasons: the complainant
testified that the appellant had given her a ring and professed that
he would want her
to be his wife one day. When they went away
together she slept in the same room alone with him; they had kissed
on two occasions
before the incident; the appellant had joked about
making babies with her and she wrote numerous emails to him
professing her love
for him, notably the Valentine’s Day email
dated 13 February 2015; and she had continued to communicate and
conduct business
with the appellant even after he had raped her.
34.4
She failed to tell the doctor that she
visited some two days after the rape that she had been raped, and did
not disclose to the
nurse who conducted the medical examination in
September 2015 that she was raped vaginally. Moreover no anal
injuries were in any
event noted during that medical examination.
34.5
Her testimony that she was not in a
romantic sexual relationship with the appellant was contradicted by
Mr Grobbelaar who testified
that the complainant told her she was
raped by her ‘ex-boyfriend’.
Evaluation
35
In terms of
section 208
of the
Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of 1977
“
an
accused may be convicted of any offence on the single evidence of any
competent witness
”. A court is
therefore entitled to convict on the evidence of a single witness if
it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt,
that such evidence is true
notwithstanding that the witness is in some respects an
unsatisfactory witness. See
R v Addurhum
1954 (3) SA 163
(NPD) at 165E
. In other
words, the evidence of a single witness has to be satisfactory but
not necessarily perfect.
36
The evidence of a single witness is subject
to the cautionary rule. This means that the trial court must
warn itself against
the dangers inherent in convicting on the
uncorroborated evidence of a single witness.
(R
v Mokoena
1932 OPD 79)
. The utmost care
which a judicial officer should adopt was stated in
S
v Sauls and Another
1981 (3) SA 172
(A) at 180E
as follows:
“
There
is no rule of thumb test or formula to apply when it comes to a
consideration of credibility of a single witness. The
trial
judge will weigh his evidence, will consider its merits and demerits
and having done so will decide whether it is trustworthy
and whether,
despite the fact that there are shortcomings or defects or
contradictions in his testimony, he is satisfied that the
truth has
been told.”
37
The court held further that in evaluating
evidence of a single witness the exercise of caution must not be
allowed to displace the
exercise of common sense. (at 180F-G)
38
The magistrate was alive to these
principles and he assessed the complainant’s evidence against
this background. The complainant
in this case was found to be a
credible and reliable witness.
39
The complainant’s account of the
events of 7 March 2015 was consistent throughout and she did not veer
from this version even
under thorough cross examination by two
different representatives of the appellant. Ms Coetzee
confirmed in her statement
that the complainant reported the rape to
her, and that she was in what could only be described as a distressed
state whilst doing
so. It is notable that this report to Ms Coetzee
occurred a mere nine days after the incident. There is further no
material discrepancy
between the complainant’s version and what
is contained in Ms Coetzee’s statement.
40
The complainant’s account of what
occurred is further consistent when viewed against the manner in
which she described it
to Mr Grobbelaar in April 2015. The only
discrepancy between the complainant and Mr Grobbelaar is his
reference to an ‘ex-boy-friend’
having committed the
rape, in circumstances where the complainant was adamant that the
appellant was never her boyfriend.
In my view, this is a
‘discrepancy’ that is more apparent than real. Mr
Grobbelaar explained it, and he attributed
his use of the term
‘boyfriend’ as opposed to the word ‘man’ to a
difference of understanding of the terms
or their use depending on
whether one spoke Afrikaans (his mother tongue) or English. His
use of the term ‘ex-boyfriend’
was not based on the
complainant having told him that she had been in a relationship with
the appellant, and this was clear from
his evidence.
41
The continued email communications from the
complainant to the appellant after the incident and the content of
the said emails obviously
raises questions. At first blush it makes
no sense that a person who was raped and stolen from would continue
to make deep expressions
of love
via
email and WhatsApp to the perpetrator. There had to be a reason
for her to do so.
42
Upon scrutiny the complainant’s
explanation as to why she remained in contact with the appellant
during the various periods
after 7 March 2015 appears to be sound and
indeed probable.
43
Her evidence was that immediately after the
rape she suffered some kind of breakdown and could not bring herself
to even speak of
the rape. This, combined with the fact that the
appellant had managed to convince her that he could secure housing
for her and
her children, made her focus, in her continuing
communications with him, on the desire to finalise this process and
secure a house.
After he disappeared with her money she remained in
contact with him, using various ploys vacillating from anger,
expressions of
love and acceptance, in an effort to get her money
back.
44
After her discharge from the Clinic she
resumed contact with the appellant on the advice of the Hawks with
whom she was cooperating
in order to secure his arrest. The idea was
that she not have physical contact with him, but that she continue
communicating with
him until such time as the Hawks’
investigation, which involved other women who had been similarly
duped by the appellant,
was at a stage where the appellant’s
arrest could be secured. That operation was successful as it
culminated in his arrest
and conviction for a crime that he admits he
committed.
45
The hotel register could unfortunately not
take the matter further as, inexplicably, some entries, according to
the complainant,
were redacted by Tippex, something she learnt when
she subsequently visited St Helena Bay Hotel with a police officer.
The Court
has, however, not been placed with the original register.
While there may or may not have been tampering with the register,
general
details contained in the copies are so scant that it is
difficult to make out whether the register provided was indeed a
document
used to record bookings of guests who visited the
establishment. While it may have helped for the State to
call the
hotel staff to explain the alleged redaction, and most
importantly, confirm whether the complainant and the appellant were
at the
St Helena Bay Hotel from 6 to 7 March, the evidence of the
complainant must still be assessed with other evidence, including
that
of the appellant.
46
The evidence is that the complainant and
the appellant spent every weekend together, and saw each other almost
daily, from 24 December
2014 until their relationship cooled off in
March. The State’s failure to call the hotel staff to
give evidence does
not, in the circumstances, mean that the
complainant’s version is not reliable or must be rejected for
lack of corroboration.
The totality of the evidence presented must be
assessed holistically. The probabilities highly support her
version that indeed
the two went to the St Helena Bay Hotel that
weekend. The appellant himself agreed that they went away
together almost every
weekend. The complainant’s version that
they went to the St Helena Bay Hotel on that weekend, at a time when
they were still
on good terms with each other, is therefore more
probable. Accordingly, the appellant’s evidence that he
never went
away with her again after 19 January 2015 was correctly
rejected because, on his own version, the sole purpose of his
pursuing
an affair with the complainant was in order to obtain money
from her, not for love. This goal was achieved not in January
but on 13 March 2015, which is consistent with the probabilities that
there was another weekend getaway to St Helena Bay Hotel
on 6 and 7
March. The appellant’s evidence that he ended their
relationship only after he had stolen her money supports these
probabilities.
47
The State’s failure to call the
doctor who examined the complainant is a neutral factor in this case.
The complainant testified
that she went to a doctor some two days
after the rape. That was at a time when mentally she was in a
dissociative state
regarding the rape. She did not link the symptoms
that she had with the rape, and accordingly she said nothing of the
rape to the
doctor. This doctor therefore would not have been
of any assistance to the magistrate in the determination of this
matter.
48
Which then brings us to the J88, which was
produced as a result of a medical examination that occurred almost
six months later on
1 September 2015. That examination,
conducted by a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Wynberg and occurring as
it did so many
months after the incident, did not detect injuries
from the rape. It is trite that the absence of physical injuries is
no indication
that no rape occurred. This latter proposition
was conceded to on behalf of the appellant. It is apparent from the
contents
of the J88 that the complainant did indeed tell the nurse
who examined her that she was there because she had been raped (she
was
after all, taken to the hospital for examination by a SAPS FCS
member for a very specific examination). What that examination
did detect, however, was a scratch on the complainant’s left
wrist, which is consistent with her version that the appellant
cut
her left wrist when he left her at her house after the rape on 7
March 2015.
49
The motive alleged by the appellant for the
laying of rape charges by the complainant against him, is not
supported by the evidence.
It is not apparent to me what would
motivate the complainant to fabricate a rape charge, and one so
gruesome at that. Had
she been motivated purely by
vindictiveness in laying the rape charge - as the appellant asserts -
it beggars belief why she would
go out of her way to invent an
elaborate (not simple) rape of the kind that she says occurred on 7
March 2015, fabricating facts
that were degrading, humiliating and
embarrassing to her directly, and to her family indirectly. All
of this, in circumstances
where the complainant had already secured
the arrest and conviction of the appellant on the fraud charge. It
was argued for the
appellant that she did all of this because after
the fraud conviction she still did not get her R50 000 back.
This assertion
cannot hold water, because the fact of the matter is
that the rape charge would not get the complainant her R50 000
back either.
50
The appellant’s assertion that the
complainant has a tendency to fabricate charges against him is also
not supported by the
evidence. The fraud / theft charges were not a
fabrication. On his own version he stole R50 000 from her.
She rightfully
reported the matter to the SAPS as she was entitled to
and the appellant was convicted for the crime. Having been vindicated
by
his prosecution and conviction in the fraud / theft matter, it
seems to me, there could sensibly be no incentive for her to create
a
rape that never occurred in order to secure his conviction when he
was already convicted and punished. The housebreaking
/ theft
charge also appears to have been rationally motivated. At first
after the housebreaking, the complainant did not
name the appellant
as a suspect in that matter. It was only later, after she
learnt that he was in possession of her cell
phone, that she named
him as a suspect in connection with that matter.
51
In light of the above, I am satisfied with
the findings of the Magistrate. There was no misdirection on
his part, he weighed
the merits and demerits of both versions of the
appellant and the State and analysed the strength and weaknesses of
both versions.
Taking a holistic view of the evidence on record, he
was, in my view, justified in finding the appellant guilty of the
three counts
of rape. The appeal against the conviction is
accordingly without merit and stands to be dismissed.
Conclusion
52
In the result, I would make the
following order:
1.
The appeal against conviction is dismissed
and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate are
confirmed.
___________________________
N
MAYOSI
Acting
Judge of the High Court
I
agree, and it is so ordered.
_________________________
N
P MABINDLA-BOQWANA
Judge
of the High Court
APPEARANCES
For the
appellant: Adv
A Botman, Legal Aid South Africa
For
the respondent: Adv P Thaiteng,
National Prosecuting Authority