• Law Reports
  • S v Julies (KS17/16) [2017] ZANCHC 41 (25 …

S v Julies (KS17/16) [2017] ZANCHC 41 (25 May 2017)

80 Reportability
Criminal Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Sexual Offences — Sentencing — Accused convicted of 34 sexual offences including 33 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape, committed over a three-year period against multiple victims, all threatened with a knife — Minimum Sentence Act applicable due to the nature and severity of the crimes — Life imprisonment imposed for multiple rapes, with individual consideration for each count — Court emphasizes the psychological and emotional trauma inflicted on victims.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment


1. Introduction


This judgment concerns sentencing proceedings in the High Court of South Africa, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley, following convictions on multiple sexual offences. The matter is cited as S v Julies (KS17/16) [2017] ZANCHC 41 (25 May 2017) and was decided by Kgomo JP.


The parties were the State as prosecutor and Mr Christian Cornelius Julies as the accused. The judgment deals only with sentence, with the convictions having been returned in earlier proceedings (referred to by the court as the judgment “which led to the convictions”). The court also recorded that the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) had centralised the trial in the Northern Cape in terms of section 22(3) of the National Prosecution Authority Act 32 of 1998.


The general subject-matter was a pattern of serial rape and attempted rape, committed over an extended period across towns in the Northern Cape and North West provinces. The State invoked the minimum sentencing regime under section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 in respect of the rape convictions.


2. Material Facts


The court treated it as established that the accused, a 47-year-old man, was convicted of 34 sexual charges committed between 24 March 2012 and 23 January 2015, spanning more than three years. In respect of counts 2 to 33, he was convicted of rape, and in respect of counts 34 and 35, he was convicted of attempted rape.


It was common cause on the court’s summary that the accused operated across multiple towns, with the judgment including a schedule of destinations and distances travelled, totalling approximately 3210 km. He was arrested on 22 February 2015 in Pampierstad (Hartswater), Northern Cape, shortly after the last attempted rape in Mmabatho.


The court relied on a consistent modus operandi across complainants. The court recorded that, without exception, complainants described the accused producing a knife or knives, threatening serious harm or death, and using those threats to compel compliance. The complainants were typically approached when alone or isolated, frequently after leaving taverns at night or early morning, and were taken to secluded areas where the rapes occurred. In two identified counts the rapes occurred in the complainants’ residences. The court further relied on evidence that the accused did not seek consent, did not use condoms, and kept the weapon within reach during intercourse.


The court also relied on facts relevant to minimum sentencing triggers and aggravation, including the youth of certain complainants (including complainants aged 15, 14, and 13 in different counts), instances of multiple rapes of the same complainant, and instances where assaults produced bodily injuries recorded in medical reports. The court highlighted the psychological and emotional trauma described by victims, including fear, distress, breakdowns during testimony, and long-term effects.


In mitigation, the accused claimed he was married with three dependent children and purported to have income from consultancy work. The court treated this asserted income narrative as fabricated, describing it as “a made up story”. The accused maintained that all sexual encounters were consensual and that he was falsely implicated; the court relied on his lack of remorse and his persistence with denial even after conviction as relevant to sentence.


3. Legal Issues


The central issues for determination were sentencing issues rather than questions of criminal liability. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for a large set of rape and attempted rape convictions, including whether the minimum sentence provisions in section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 were applicable to particular counts and, where applicable, whether “substantial and compelling circumstances” existed to justify a departure from the prescribed sentences.


The dispute before the sentencing court primarily concerned the application of law to fact and an evaluative sentencing judgment. It required the court to apply the statutory minimum sentencing framework to the circumstances of the offences and offender, and to assess whether any mitigating factors rose to the level required by law to deviate from prescribed sentences.


4. Court’s Reasoning


The court approached sentence on the basis that the accused’s conduct constituted a sustained pattern of predatory sexual violence and that the offences were aggravated by threats with weapons, repeated attacks, the targeting of vulnerable complainants (including minors), and the profound psychological impact described in the record. The court treated the scale and persistence of the offending as demonstrating a continuing danger to the community, observing that if the accused had not been stopped, the devastation would have continued.


In applying the statutory framework, the court relied on the minimum sentencing regime under section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, and specifically referred to Part I of Schedule 2 in relation to circumstances in which life imprisonment is ordained, including where the victim was raped more than once by the accused. The court also treated the rape of complainants under 16 years as attracting the minimum sentence consequences in the relevant counts, as reflected in the sentencing outcomes imposed.


The court drew on appellate authority concerning the approach to prescribed minimum sentences. It invoked S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) for the principle that courts must regard prescribed sentences as the sentence that should ordinarily be imposed, and may not depart from them without truly convincing reasons. It also referred to S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) in support of that approach. In relation to the seriousness of rape and the constitutional interests implicated, the court referred to S v Chapman [1997] ZASCA 45; 1997 (2) SACR 3 (SCA), emphasising that rape is a humiliating and brutal invasion of dignity and bodily integrity and that courts must send a strong deterrent message.


On mitigation, the court declined to treat the accused as a “first offender” in any meaningful sense, notwithstanding the absence of previous convictions, because the convictions covered numerous offences over several years. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from prescribed minimum sentences, and recorded that defence counsel conceded this. The court also regarded the accused’s absence of remorse, his persistence with a false narrative of consent, and his stance during trial as aggravating features relevant to the sentencing discretion.


Finally, the court exercised a discretion on the structuring of the sentence by directing concurrency. It ordered that the non-life terms run concurrently with the life sentences, and that the multiple life sentences run concurrently with one another. The court also made an administrative-protective order under sexual offences legislation by directing that the accused’s details be entered into the Register of Sex Offenders and by recording the statutory consequences of that registration.


5. Outcome and Relief


The court imposed multiple sentences of life imprisonment and additional fixed-term sentences for other rape counts and the attempted rape counts, structured to run concurrently. In substance, the court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment on counts 12 and 13 (taken together), count 15, count 18, count 22, count 27, count 30, and count 33.


For a further group of rape counts, the court imposed 16 years’ imprisonment on each count, namely counts 6, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31. For another group of rape counts, the court imposed 15 years’ imprisonment on each count, namely counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 32.


For the attempted rape convictions, the court imposed 10 years’ imprisonment on count 34 and 11 years’ imprisonment on count 35. The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently with the seven life sentences, and that the life sentences also run concurrently with each other.


In addition, the court ordered that the accused’s name be recorded in the Register of Sex Offenders and recorded statutory prohibitions flowing from that registration under the relevant sexual offences legislation. The judgment, as provided, does not reflect a separate costs order (consistent with the nature of criminal proceedings).


Cases Cited


S v Chapman [1997] ZASCA 45; 1997 (2) SACR 3 (SCA).


S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA).


S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA).


Legislation Cited


Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, section 51 and Part I of Schedule 2.


National Prosecution Authority Act 32 of 1998, section 22(3).


Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, section 3; section 41(1); sections 46, 47 and 48.


Rules of Court Cited


No rules of court are cited in the provided judgment text.


Held


The court held that, given the nature of the accused’s offending across numerous complainants, the repeated use of threats with knives, the targeting of minors in several instances, and the severe impact on complainants, the offences fell within the scope of the minimum sentencing regime, including circumstances warranting life imprisonment on specified counts. It further held that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the prescribed sentences, and it treated the accused’s lack of remorse and continued denial as aggravating.


The court accordingly imposed seven concurrent life sentences for specified rape counts, together with additional fixed-term sentences for other rape counts and the attempted rape counts, all structured to run concurrently with the life sentences. It also directed that the accused be entered in the Register of Sex Offenders and recorded the statutory consequences that follow from registration.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The judgment applied the principle that where the Legislature has prescribed minimum sentences for specified serious offences, the sentencing court must treat the prescribed sentence as the ordinary sentence and may deviate only where substantial and compelling circumstances are present, with departures not permitted for speculative or flimsy reasons, undue sympathy, or marginal personal factors. This approach was applied consistently with S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) and the further authority referenced by the court.


The judgment applied the principle that rape constitutes a grave violation of dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity, and that sentencing in rape matters must reflect seriousness, deterrence, and the protection of society, consistent with the constitutional-inflected articulation quoted from S v Chapman [1997] ZASCA 45; 1997 (2) SACR 3 (SCA).


The judgment further reflected the principle that the absence of previous convictions does not necessarily carry significant mitigating weight where the offender has committed numerous serious offences over an extended period, and that lack of remorse and persistence in a false exculpatory narrative may properly be treated as aggravating in determining an appropriate sentence.


Finally, the judgment applied statutory consequences attached to sexual offence convictions by directing inclusion in the Register of Sex Offenders under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, together with the attendant prohibitions and compliance obligations specified in that Act.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZANCHC 41
|

|

S v Julies (KS17/16) [2017] ZANCHC 41 (25 May 2017)

SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[NORTHERN
CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY]
Case
No:
KS
17/16
Argument
Heard:
23-05-2017
Judgment
Delivered:
25-05-2017
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
And
CHRISTIAN
CORNELIUS JULIES
Accused
Coram:
Kgomo JP
SENTENCE
Kgomo
JP
[1]
Mr Christian Cornelius Julies is a 47 year old man of [...] J. S.,
Galeshewe Suburb Kimberley, Northern Cape. He has been convicted
of
34 charges of a sexual nature
which he committed between 24 March 2012 and 23 January 2015, a
period of over three years. He was arrested on 22 February 2015
at
Pampierstad (Hartswater), Northern Cape, where he had rented a room,
less than a month after his final episode, attempted rape,
in
Mmabatho, North West Province.
[2]
In
respect of Counts 2 to 33 the accused has been convicted of rape.
The state invoked the provisions of s 51 of the Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, 105 of 1997 (the Minimum Sentence Act).  As far
as Counts 34 and 35 are concerned he has been found guilty
of
attempted rape.
[3]
The National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) had centralised
the trial in the Northern Cape in terms of s 22(3) of the
National
Prosecution Act, 32 of 1998 (the NPA Act). The schedule that follows
maps out the spiderweb spun by the accused as he
criss-crossed
certain towns in the Northern Cape and the North West Provinces, the
dates on which he was at such destinations,
the distances travelled
between the towns (destinations) and the approximate overall (known)
distance covered over the three (3)
years as a fugitive from justice:
COUNT
DATE OF CRIME
TOWN (DESTINATION)
DISTANCE TRAVELLED
2 – 11
24/03/12 –
25/11/12
Kimberley
0
12 – 14
26/01/13 –
27/02/13
Ritchie
42
15
29/03/13
Kimberley
42
16
20/04/13
Ritchie
42
17
04/07/13
Kimberley
42
18
25/11/13
Upington
411
19
19/03/14
Mmabatho
560
20
12/06/14
Mothibistad
378
21
13/06/14
Kuruman
13
22
09/08/14
Kathu
60
23 – 24
26/09/14 –
03/10/14
Kakamas
312
25 – 27
28/10/14 –
08/11/14
Postmasburg
307
28, 29 & 34
20/11/14 –
24/12/14
Olifantshoek
85
30
02/01/15
Postmasburg
85
31
12/01/15
Mahikeng
518
32,33 & 35
18/01/15 –
23/01/15
Mmabatho
8
PLACE OF ARREST
22/02/15
Pampierstad/Hartswater
305
TOTAL OF DISTANCE
TRAVELLED
3210
[4] This is how the accused
committed the offences:
4.1
Without exception, all 33 complainants stated that the accused drew a
knife or knives on them, threatened
to harm or kill them if they did
not cooperate or do as he commanded them to;
4.2
The accused warned each victim not to scream or else risked being
“
killed”
, “
butchered
”, “
having
the knife driven through your body”
, “
risk being
seriously harmed”
, their bodies will be discovered by their
next of kin the next day, etc.
4.3
All the complainants maintain that they were pounced upon when they
were walking alone or were isolated. In
other words, when they were
easy prey or defenceless;
4.4
Invariably the complainants were from a tavern (shebeen) at night or
early hours of the morning when they
were surprised and grabbed, of
course at knifepoint. It appears from the evidence that the accused
stalked or followed his quarries
from a “
watering hole”.
4.5
In 32 instances with a knife to the throat or side the women were
abducted into a bushy area or isolated spot
where they were raped.
Relating to Count 25 (Postmasburg, pertaining to Ms TK) and Count 31
(Mahikeng, relating to Ms AOL) the
rapes took place inside the
complainants’ residences;
4.6
The accused ordered the complainants to undress only one leg of their
pair of trousers and/or panty. He would
then only lower his pair of
pants to his knees before penetrating them vaginally. He would
invariably order them to walk ahead
and not to look back before he
vanished.
4.7
The women that he targeted during the day he was very civil to and
won their confidence. He was to them (or
may be described as) “tall,
dark and handsome”. He is proficient in Setswana, Afrikaans and
English which facilitated
his communication with his targets. The
accused would then convince the ladies (always by themselves) that he
needed to deliver
money to his wife or girlfriend. He claimed his
wife/girlfriend would not allow him to leave whereas he had a
commitment elsewhere.
Their trip would end up in a forbidden path. At
the flip of a coin the saintly demeanour would morph into a ghastly
devil. The
knife or knives would be out.  The result would
always be the same. He got his way.
4.8
Having regard to the evidence of the complainants, at no stage did
the accused propose love to anyone of them
nor did he solicit or seek
their consent to have sexual intercourse with them;
4.9
During the intercourse he either drove or stuck the blade  of
the panga (or huge knife) into the ground
next to a complainant’s
head where she would be lying  on her back but within reach of
his dextrous hand or he would
visibly place the knife within reach of
his clutches;
4.10
He never used a condom nor did he offer to use it. On the contrary he
rebuffed those who dared to implore him to employ
it. He even got
incensed when such requests were made;
4.11
On a number of occasions the complainants’ cellphones rang. The
accused ordered them not to answer the call. On
two occasions he
instructed them to throw them away and on two other instances when
the phone rang repeatedly he commanded that
they be switched off.
[5] The
record of proceedings is replete with accounts and narratives of the
quadruple nightmare stages the victims of these ordeals
had to
endure:
5.1
First, the unexpected and sudden instillation of fear at knifepoint;
5.2
Secondly, the physical and emotional pain during the rape act;
5.3
Thirdly, the lingering anxiety of whether they were going to escape
with their lives after the rape, having
regard also to the preceding
two predatory stages; and
5.4
Fourthly, the roller-coaster emotional and psychological ride that
remained enshrined in the memories of the
victims/survivors.
Each one asked herself: Have I been infected by a sexually
transmitted disease?  What about my love
relationship with my
spouse or partner?  How would I handle the societal
stigmatization if my ordeal comes to light?
For example:
One complaint withdrew the charges to normalise her love-life or pick
up the pieces with her newly wed husband;
yet two others were
reluctant to lay charges fearing the same kind of stigma or be
shamed.
[6] The
rape survivors coped or handled the ordeal or trauma differently.
One described how her whole body and mind froze
when the face of the
man who won her trust a while ago morphed into a monster.
Another pleaded that her life be spared because
she has a young child
to take care of.  One other was afraid to give a wrong answer
and told the accused he can take as long
as he pleases with her.
Yet another was pressed and wet her pants because the accused would
not let her do her thing with
a modicum of decency, given the
circumstances.  A plea for the use of a condom by others was
like a red-flag to a Spanish
bull.  A 17 year old virgin who
plucked up some courage and pleaded for the retention of the sanctity
of her body was rebuffed
with:  “
I don’t care.”
[7] It
would be superfluous to regurgitate all these tales of woe because
they are comprehensively captured in the judgment which
led to the
convictions.  For the class of cases already broadly alluded to
there seems to be no fundamental differences that
should impel a case
by case differential sentence.  However, in respect of the
charges for which a particular (minimum) sentence
is ordained the
sentences would have to be individualised.
[8] Ms
PM, Counts 12 and 13, was raped twice at knife-point.  Once
orally (per mouth) and once per vagina.
These
counts would be taken as one for purposes of the imposition of an
appropriate sentence.
Section 51(1)
of the
Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997
in
Part 1
of Schedule 2 prescribes a
sentence of life imprisonment in the event of :
“
Rape as
contemplated in section 3 of the
Criminal Law (Sexual
Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act
, 2007 –
(a)
When
committed
(i)
In circumstances where the victim was raped more than once ---
by the accused ---.”
[9] In
Count 15 Ms GR, who was caused to wet her pants, was injured as
follows (as described in the judgment):
“
The
J88, the medical examination report conducted by Dr Loggenberg on Ms
GR, Exh “PP”, the contents whereof are consensually

admitted, records at para C that: “General examination:
Condition of clothing: Bloodstained, dirty, torn”.
Paras
5 and 6 reflect that:
‘
5.
30 year old female, hv of sexual assault at 03h00 on 29 March 2013,
O/E ; stab wou
nd
to (L) thumb pulmur area, also more superficial wound on (L) ring
finger. Injury on this measures about 2x2cm / one on ring finger
1cm
hand is neuro vuscularly intact and, --- no fractures present. No
other physical injuries noted.
6.
Mental health and emotional status: Distressed, rattled, jittery’.”
[10] Ms
DNK, Count 17, was 19 years old and was warned that if she made any
noise ”
your people will find you here the next morning,
dead.”
Her mother described the situation as follows:
“
---
her daughter knocked furiously on the door “in a way I was not
used to………
‘
Yes?
---
After I opened she came in she could not even talk she was just
showing me saying mum there [in] the veldt, there [in] the veldt.

When I went out I wanted to see as to what was happening there in the
veldt. I could not see anything, I even went out of the gate
but
could not see anything.
What
was her emotional state when she was saying kwa nageng, kwa nageng?
---
She was very scared and she was crying terribly. I then asked her
what happened, what happened there in the veldt.  She then
told
me that mum I was raped’.
”
[11] Ms
PUB, in Count 18, was 15 years old when she was raped in the
Graveyard in Upington.  She was therefore under 16 years
which
makes the minimum sentence applicable in her case.
[12] Ms
LK, Count 19, 19 years old, broke down more than once in court.
The judgment in para 123 reads:
“
The
complainant responded that her grandfather, with whom she stayed, was
home that afternoon and evening and that she could not
have been home
only with the accused. It was not easy meandering through the
complainant’s evidence as she cried bitterly
throughout. The
disbelief in her facial expression, her body language as well as her
tone of voice to suggestions made to her by
the defence spoke
volumes. Hence the record reads in this regard:
‘
HOF
:
Net so ‘n oomblikkie. Well, all those answers [by Ms LK] are
given with a broken voice and as the witness is crying. She
is crying
now, okay. === Hy praat nie die waarheid nie.
Hof
:
Well, one other observation is how the witness throughout shakes her
head as she is crying. Ms LK, should we continue?
=== We
may continue.’
”
[13] Ms
OVM, in Count 22, was 15 years old, and a high school girl when she
was raped in Kathu.  He raped her from around sunrise
on the
morning of 09 August 2014 until about 14h00.  He slapped her
face because she refused to open her legs.  When
she did he
“
looked transfixed at her nakedness”
and praised
her “
beautiful vagina.”
Because she was a
virgin he boasted that he had deflowered her.  The minimum
sentence provision is also applicable in
her case.
[14] Ms
IRP, Count 27, was 15 years old, (born on 27 February 1999) when she
was raped on 08 November 2014 in Postmasburg.
She was still so
traumatised that she testified through an intermediary on 26 October
2016 at age 17.  The judgment on conviction
recounts the
incident as follows at paras 165 – 167:
“
[165]
The accused pulled her into a shallow donga. Ms IRP asked him what he
was going to do to her. He said he
wanted sex and nothing more, but
using a profanity. (At this point the complainant became too
emotional, broke down and cried.
An adjournment was taken). On
resumption: She told him that she was still a virgin. He told her he
did not care. He ordered her
to undress but she refused. He wrestled
her to the ground as she repulsed him. He also throttled and slapped
her.
[166]
In the course of the struggle the accused again threatened to stab
her. He managed to undress her
and himself. He raped her. As he
penetrated her he hurt her genetalia and bit her on her chest and
cheek. Ms IRP exhibited the
marks in court.   The medical
report also reflects “the love bites”, a misnomer, on the
neck. The accused,
after the act(s), berated her for making him
struggle so much to get his will. Ms IRP dressed up quickly, while
the accused was
still putting on his clothes, and tried to make a
dash for it. He caught her and told her they would walk side by side
back into
the residential area. He took out his cellphone and took a
picture of her despite her protestation.
[167]
At some point the accused told Ms IRP to remain standing while he
collected his wallet which he said
he left behind. This afforded her
the opportunity to flee. She made telephonic contact with her
brother, Samuel, who collected
her from the Traffic Department. Her
evidence, that of her brother, Samuel, and the social worker’s
(Ms Zanzi’s) report,
and the complainant’s demeanour in
court leave no doubt in my mind  that she was severely
traumatised. The source thereof
can only be the assaults meted out by
the accused.”
[15] Ms
ABL, Count 28, a self-declared Lesbian, was 16 years old when she was
raped on 16 November 2014 in Olifantshoek.  Except
to state that
the accused did not rape her because of her sexual orientation,
nothing more need be said.
[16] Ms
CJD, Count 29, was 21 years when she was raped on 24 December 2014.
What also made her case unique was that her sandals
slipped out in
the bushes which the accused forced her into.  He made her walk
barefoot and was badly pricked by the thorns.
He was cruel to
her in more than one way.
[17] Ms
C(S)B, Count 30, was 14 years old, and the second youngest of his
victims, when she was raped.  He plucked tufts of
hair from her
skull when he tugged her by her long braids. He drew an Okapi knife
on her.  When she took fright and screamed
he admonished this
little girl:  “
Shut your mouth bitch.”
After the rape he warned her not to report to the police because they
would “
fiddle in her vagina.”
The poor girl
was bewildered and disorientated.  She asked for directions from
her tormentor.  The judgment reads
from para 182-184:
“
He
walked her towards the residential area and stopped in the middle of
nowhere. She started running, blindly. She noticed Asmandia
Lower
Primary School and regained her bearings.
[183]
Ms C(S)B states that the accused assaulted her when she screamed. ---
. When she reached home she viewed herself in the mirror.
Her cheeks
were swollen and her eyes were red from the mistreatment she was
subjected to. She reported to her uncle Jacobus B.
The latter
testified that his niece was severely traumatised and emotional. Her
face was swollen, her eyes red and her clothes
soiled.  The
police were summoned.
[184]
Of significance are these findings by Dr Matsepane who examined Ms
C(S)B on the same day; (Exh M):
‘
B.
General History
8.
Conclusions
Minor
girl with history of alleged sexual assault. A frontline bruise seen
on right cheekbone; slight redness of right eye. Injury
is caused by
a blunt forceful object that is consistent with history. Injury not
life-threatening”. Further down:
“
F.
Samples taken for investigation.
3.Conclusions
Minor
woman with history of alleged sexual assault. Female genetalia
normal. No evidence of previous sexual encounter. A small bruise
seen
at hymenal tissue at 7 o’clock. Rest of hymen intact. Increased
friability at posterior fourchette that can be consistent
with
fiddling by a blunt object, beyond the labia minora’.”
The
minimum sentence is clearly applicable to this case
[18] Ms
KTL, Count 33, was 17 years old when she was raped in
Mmabatho/Mahikeng on 14 December 2016.  It was daylight and she

was in school uniform.  After being grabbed she managed to
sprint away.  The judgment continues in paras 196 -198:
“
The
accused warned her to silence, told her that they are heading for the
bush and caused her to remove her bright yellow school
shirt. He
reckoned it was recognizable and would attract attention. In the
process she gave him the school bag to hold. She sprinted
away. He
caught up with her, grabbed her long hair and pushed her down. He
then jerked her up with her school tie and used it as
a dog-leash to
tug her into the bush.
Ms
KTL takes up the narrative graphically in these terms:
“
And
was there anything underneath the shirt? === It was just my brazier.
Okay.
Now he is pulling you with your tie to the second tree? === I was
already on the ground and I was fighting with him. He was
beating me,
hitting me with fists and he was also like banging my head on the
ground.
Where
was he assaulting you with clenched fists? === In the face.
Okay?
=== I was on the ground and I just gave in. I was wearing pantyhose.
He pulled up my skirt and then he pulled me. He undressed
me and he
also undressed. I was lying there and he bend there on his knees.
Lying
on your back? === Yes, on the ground. Where was the knife then, did
you see it? === No. I think during our fighting at that
place where
we were fighting when he was chasing me the knife fell.
Okay,
you were on your back now. === He undressed himself and then he
inserted his penis into my vagina and had sexual intercourse
with me.
Proceed,
what happened thereafter? === I was scared and then after he finished
my school bag has fallen somewhere and my phone and
my shirt also.
During
your resistance? === Yes. He then said that I must sit there, he will
go and collect them for me. I sat there. He went there
and I was
scared at that stage now. He came back with them.
What
did he bring, the school bag and the phone? === And the shirt.
Okay?
=== And the shoes. I got dressed and he accompanied me through the
outer bush. He did not go out of the bush. Just before
we reached the
houses, when we could see the houses he told me that he was going to
stand there and I must walk away. I then walked
away. After I came
out of the bush I called my mother. My mother met me halfway and then
she took me there. I went home and then
I left the bag at home. From
there we went to the clinic, boarded a taxi and went to the clinic”.
The
police then took over.
The
J88 (medical report) Exh “BBB” by Dr Motlhaping was
handed in by consent and the contents thereof accepted. The
evidence
on this point reads:
‘
Clinical
findings:
On the 21
st
January 2015 at about 15h00 a female victim alleges she was from
school when unknown man to her threatened her with a gun and a
knife
and took her to the nearest bush where he undressed and penetrated
her vaginally without a condom. (a) Tender swelling right
forehead.
Bruises below right eye. Bruise below left eye. A bruise of 10mm in
diameter around the neck. (e) Probably caused by
school tie. Multiple
abrasions on the back. Scratches above the right knee. Bruises on the
anterior throat of the neck. Well orientated
to the time and place.
Conclusion:
The presence of
bodily injury are consistent with alleged history of sexual assault.
On the gynaecological examination: Point number
10: A tear observed
at six o’clock at the posterior fourchette. Point number 11;
Fossanavicularis, bruises ranging from 5
to 7 o’clock.
And
the conclusions: The presence of bruises and some of the genital
injuries are consistent with the history of alleged sexual

assault'
.(own
emphasis).
”
[19]    Ms PK, Count 34,
was born in May 2001.  Her birth was not registered.  Her
aunt Ms MO satisfied
the state, the defence and me that Ms MO’s
evidence was credible.  She and Ms PK’s mother (her
sister) gave birth
within two months of each other to their children,
one of whom was Ms PK.  Ms PK testified, through an
intermediary.
When the attempted rape took place on 20 November
2014 she was a mere 13 years old.  The youngest of the accused’s
victims.
[20]    The accused lured
her away from her home under false pretences.  He abducted her
into a donga.
She screamed.  He threatened to kill her and
pushed her to the ground.  He was armed with a big knife.
Despite
several attempts he was unable to penetrate her sexually, but
ejaculated on her.  The small stature of the girl and her
baby-face
did not deter him.  She has now dropped out of
school.
[21]    Ms K(L)AS, Count
35, was the last known victim of the accused’s reign of
terror.  She was 16 years
old, from school and in school
uniform, when the accused attempted to rape her.  The judgment
at paras 208 - 210 records:
“
[208]
The accused thereupon placed the knife in his back pocket. She
reached for the knife
but he warded her off. He then slapped her with
an open hand and pummelled her with a clenched fist several times
before producing
the knife again. She called a truce. The accused
ordered her to remove her tights and pantyhose of the left leg and
said she must
hurry up, but she doddered. He punched her again and
again all over her body.  He spread his T-shirt for her to lie
on and
used her school bag as a cushion.
[209]
The accused undressed
himself and laid on top of her, poised to penetrate her.
She told him
that he weighed down too heavily on her. He heaved himself up to give
her some respite. In that process she gave him
a hefty kick to his
private parts, which angered him. He slapped and punched her some
more. He attempted once more to penetrate
her but an erectile
dysfunction which had set in thwarted his intention. He scolded Ms
K(L)AS and tried a penal arousal by shaking
(“skud”) his
penis but to no avail. He again castigated her for misfiring.
[210]
The complainant
demonstrated how the accused wiggled his penis while clutching
it.
She then noticed that the accused had ejaculated over her vagina. She
was unsure at what stage this happened. Fearing pregnancy
this 16
year old urinated there and then in an effort, in her mind, to
expel/eject the sperms.  She thus urinated on his T-shirt.
He
wrung it dry and wore it and left running, leaving the complainant on
the scene where she cried and screamed. I suppose retired
Public
Protector, Adv Thuli Mandonsela, would have characterised Ms K(L)AS
as “The Feisty One, who got away”. She fought
like a
tigress to protect the sanctity of her bodily integrity and her
dignity from being violated.”
[22] I
have declared the accused a serial rapist.  He never slept.
He prowled the streets night and day.  The rapes
and attacks
took place just about at every hour of the day or night.  When
he was finally cornered on 22 February 2015 where
he had set up base
in Pampierstad near Hartswater he had criss-crossed the Northern Cape
and the North West Provinces and had covered
over 3210 km on the
run.  It is unquestionable that if he was not stopped in his
tracks, belatedly though, the devastation
of girls and women’s
lives would have continued.
[23]
When he testified the accused showed no remorse or emotions.
During the trial he sat stony-faced as his victims sobbed,
cried,
broke down in court or relieved the nightmares, and nightmares they
were.  To the contrary he instructed his counsel,
whose shoes I
wish on no one, to put false statements to the already traumatised
complainants.  As the record and the judgment
show that sadistic
attitude heaped scorn to injury, which the complainants could not
take.  Asked why he did those bad things
to the complaints, now
that he has been shown to have been a rapist, he persisted that he
was implicated falsely.
[24]
When he testified before his conviction the accused falsely described
himself as charmer and a gentleman.  He claimed
that all the
girls and women gave consent to the sexual acts and that the isolated
bushy places where the attacks took place were
agreed upon.  No,
he was not a fugitive from justice, he was merely selling soft goods;
that no one ever saw.  The truth
is that he was a pedestrian and
unemployed.
[25]
The accused states that after leaving school he was conscripted to
South African Defence Force for five years but was retrenched
with
the advent of democracy when the SADF was integrated with the
Liberation Movement Forces (Mkhonto-We-Sizwe (MK) and APLA).
That he
then worked for Lewis and Bradlows Furniture Stores for a combined
period of 6 years.
[26]
The accused says that he is married and has three dependent
children.  One at University and two at High School, aged
20, 18
and 12, respectively.  He claims that he still is a consultant
for an International Funding Institution and maintains
his dependants
with the income derived from it.   According to him this
income has not dried up notwithstanding his incarceration
since 22
February 2015, more than two years later.  This is a made up
story.
[27]
The solemn promise that Chief Justice Mahomed  made in 1997 in
S
v Chapman
[1997] ZASCA 45
;
1997 (2) SACR 3
(SCA) at 5b-f  is yet to
materialise when he declared:
“
Rape is a
very serious offence, constituting as it does a humiliating,
degrading and brutal invasion of the privacy, the dignity
and the
person of the victim.
The rights to
dignity, to privacy and the integrity of every person are basic to
the ethos of the Constitution and to any defensible
civilisation.
Women in this
country are entitled to the protection of these rights. They have a
legitimate claim to walk peacefully on the streets,
to enjoy their
shopping and their entertainment, to go and come from work, and to
enjoy the peace and tranquillity of their homes
without the fear, the
apprehension and the insecurity which constantly diminishes the
quality and enjoyment of their lives.
The appellant showed
no respect for their rights. He prowled the streets and shopping
malls and in a short period of one week he
raped three young women,
who were unknown to him. He deceptively  pretended to care for
them by giving them lifts and then
proceeded to rape them callously
and brutally, after threatening them with a knife. At no stage did he
show the slightest remorse.
The Courts are under
a duty to send a clear message to the accused, to other potential
rapists and to the community: We are determined
to protect the
equality, dignity and freedom of all women,  and we shall show
no mercy to those who seek to invade those rights.
We communicate that
message in this case by an order that the appeal of the appellant
against his convictions and sentences is dismissed.
”
[28] In
S v Malgas
2001 (1) SACR 469
(SCA) at 481h – 482a
Marais JA stated:
“
B. Courts are
required to approach the imposition of sentence conscious that the
Legislature has ordained life imprisonment (or
the particular
prescribed period of imprisonment) as the sentence that should
ordinarily and in the absence of weighty justification
be imposed
for the listed crimes in the specified circumstances.
C.
Unless there are, and can be seen to be, truly convincing reasons for
a different response, the crim
es in question are therefore
required to elicit a severe, standardised and consistent response
from the courts.
D. The specified
sentences are not to be departed from lightly and for flimsy
reasons. Speculative hypotheses favourable to
the offender, undue
sympathy, aversion to imprisoning first offenders, personal doubts as
to the efficacy of the policy underlying
the legislation, and
marginal differences in personal circumstances or degrees of
participation between co-offenders are to be
excluded.
”
See
also
S v Matyityi
2011 (1) SACR 40
(SCA) at 50a -54b (paras 18-24).
[29] It
must be recognized that the accused cannot be called a first offender
when he committed 34 offences between 24 March 2012
and 23 January
2015.  The fact that he has no previous convictions counts for
nothing. I can find no substantial and compelling
circumstances
regard being had to the aforementioned factors.  Mr Fourie
conceded this much.  State counsel, Mr Makhaga,
has urged for
minimum sentences to be imposed more or less along the lines set out
hereinbefore.
[30]
I
therefore sentence the accused as follows:
1.
Counts 12 and 13
(the rape of Ms PM) are taken together for
purposes of sentence:  The accused is sentence to Life
Imprisonment.
2.
Count 15
(the rape and serious assault of Ms GR):  The
accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
3.
Count 18
(the rape of Ms PUB who was 15 years old):  The
accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
4.
Count 22
(the rape of Ms OVM who was 15 years old):  The
accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
5.
Count 27
(the rape of Ms IRP who was 15 years old):  The
accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
6.
Count 30
(the rape of Ms C(S)B who was 14 years old and badly
beaten):
The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
7.
Count 33
(the rape and serious assault of 17 year old Ms KTL):
The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment
.
8.
Count 6
(the rape of 16 year old Ms KP);
Count 23
(the
rape of 17 year old Ms LCB);
Count 25
(the rape of 23
year old Ms TK in her home);
Count 26
(the rape of
17 year old student, Ms EPM);
Count 28
(the rape of the
16 year old Lesbian (Ms ABL);
Count 29
(the rape of 21
year old Ms CJD, made to walk barefoot through the thorns);
Count 31
(the rape of 16 year old Ms AOL in her home);
The accused is sentenced to
16 (sixteen) years imprisonment on
each one of the 7 (seven counts).
9.
In respect of
Count 2
(the rape of Ms PV);
Count 3
(the rape of Ms TJMB);
Count 4
(the rape of Ms JJ);
Count 5
(the rape of Ms GP);
Count 7
(the rape of
Ms CML);
Count 8
(the rape of Ms MPM);
Count 9
(the rape of Ms SEP);
Count 10
(the rape of Ms JN);
Count 11
(the rape of Ms RPV);
Count 14
(the rape
of Ms CH);
Count 16
(the rape of Ms PJ)
Count 17
(the rape of Ms DNK);
Count 19
(the rape of Ms LK);
Count 20
(the rape of Ms TPM);
Count 21
(the rape
of Ms KEMG);
Count 24
(the rape of Ms BM);
Count
32
(the rape of Ms MPM):
The accused is sentenced to 15
(fifteen) years imprisonment on each of the 17 Counts.
10.
Count 34
(the attempted rape of 13 year old Ms PK):
The
accused is sentenced to 10 (ten) years imprisonment.
11.
Count 35
(the attempted rape and assault of 16 year old Ms
K(L)AS:
The accused is sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
12.
It is ordered that all the sentences run concurrently with the 7
(seven) sentences
of Life Imprisonment (which Life Imprisonments will
also run concurrently with each other).
13.
It is ordered that the accused’s name (
Mr Christian
Cornelius Julies
) be recorded forthwith in the Register of Sex
Offenders.  In terms of
s 41(1)
of the
Criminal Law (Sexual
Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007
the accused
may henceforth not:
13.1
Be employed to work with a child in any circumstances;
13.2
Hold any position, related to his employment, or for any commercial
benefit which in any manner places him in any position
of authority,
supervision or care of a child, or which, in any other manner, places
him in a position of authority, supervision
or care of a child or
where he gains access to a child or places where children are present
or congregate;
13.3
Be granted a licence or be given approval to manage or operate any
entity, business concern or trade in relation to the
supervision over
or care of a child or where children are present or congregate; or
13.4
Become the foster parent, kinship care-giver, temporary safe
care-giver or adoptive parent of a child.
13.5
The accused must further comply with the provisions of
sections 46
,
47
and
48
of the same Act which provisions have to be explained to
him by his counsel, Adv T. Fourie.
_______________________
F
DIALE KGOMO
JUDGE
PRESIDENT
Northern
Cape Division, Kimberley
On
behalf of the State:
Adv
R Makgaga & Adv Q Hollander  (Director Public Prosecutor)
Kimberley)
On
behalf of Accused:
Adv
T Fourie (Legal Aid South Africa)

Back to Law Reports