www.saflii.org › Databases
Nov 13, 2009 - [2] The state alleged that on 10 March 2001 in the Knysna
Police cells, the appellant murdered a 15 year old youth, one Richard
Stephanus ...
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Van
der Walt v S (A29/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 200 (13 November 2009)
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: A29/2008
In the
matter between:
STEVEN STEPHANUS JOHANNES VAN DER WALTAppellant
Versus
THE STATE Respondent
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON 13 NOVEMBER 2009
Allie, J
[1] The appellant was convicted on 1 June 2007 in the Knysna Regional
Court of murder and sentenced on 16 October 2007 to 10 years imprisonment.
[2] The state alleged that on 10 March 2001 in the Knysna Police cells,
the appellant murdered a 15 year old youth, one Richard Stephanus Armoed by
beating him to death. The state alleged that a police officer, Mr Rein
encountered the appellant outside a night club. The appellant insisted that
Rein should give him an affidavit so that he could be allowed into the night
club. It was Rein's testimony that the appellant was intoxicated and aggressive
so he arrested him for being under the influence of liquor in a public place.
[3] At the police station the appellant repeatedly invited Rein to beat
him saying he wanted to then press charges against Rein if he beat him. The
appellant allegedly refused to give his name, age and other personal
information to the police. Rein alleged that the appellant twice jumped over
the counter in the Police Service Centre.
[4] The appellant allegedly resisted being taken to the police cells by
holding onto the door frame and by throwing himself onto the floor. Rein
estimated that the appellant could be 16 or 17 years old and decided to place
him in a juvenile cell. The deceased was sleeping in the front part of the cell
at the time. He was lying on the right side in the lobby of the cell. When Rein
asked the deceased if everything was in order, he moved slightly.
[5] Constable Grootboom accompanied Rein when he took the appellant to
the cell. Rein testified that the appellant had sustained some injuries because
he resisted being placed in the cell and he tried to escape while he was in the
Service Centre. The injuries were described as minor.
[6] Rein then continued to patrol the area. When Constable Grootboom and
Inspector Terblanche later placed another person, one Isak Campher, in the
adult cell for being drunk in a public place, they did a cell inspection.
[7] At 2h15am they did a cell inspection and told the appellant to stop
banging on the bars of the cell gate. Close to 3am Inspector Terblanche and
Constable Grootboom did a further cell inspection. They saw blood spatter
against the wall of the juvenile cell. They found the bloodied body of the
deceased in the front part of the cell. The felt for a pulse but there was
none.
[8] When they asked the appellant, who was laying further inside the
cell, what happened, he did not answer them. Inspector Terblanche went to call
Inspector Palmer, the station commander, while Constable Grootboom waited
outside the cell gate.
[9] Inspector Palmer contacted the ambulance service, the station
commissioner, the stand by officer and Inspector Rein. Inspector Rein arrived
and went to check the body of the deceased for a pulse. He asked the appellant what
he had done to the child. According to Rein, the appellant was wet at the time.
The appellant then alleged that Rein had come into the cells earlier, had
beaten the appellant and killed the deceased.
[10] The clothing of both Rein and the appellant were then forensically
tested and analysed. When a luminol reagent was applied to parts of the
clothing of the appellant, it revealed blood stains.
[11] The pathologist found that the deceased died as a result of severe
head injuries. She found that the deceased's head must have been banged against
the wall and/or other surfaces to cause the haemorrhaging, swelling and
lacerations. She said that "the whole scalp was just one massive
haemorrhage."
[12] The district surgeon testified that the sleeves of the T-shirt of
the appellant and the lower line of his pants were damp. Appellant also told Dr
Greve that Rein murdered the deceased. He could see no blood on his clothes. He
observed a small amount of blood on the right shoe of the appellant. The doctor
found him to be agitated. The doctor found that his pupils were dilated and
responded poorly to light and he smelt of alcohol, therefore he concluded that
the appellant consumed alcohol. He took scrapings from underneath the nails of
the appellant. The doctor noted small multiple abrasions on the face and neck
of the appellant and recent, red abrasions on his back.
[13] Ms Sender was held in the female cell next to the cell in which the
appellant and the deceased were kept. She heard the appellant shout and make a noise
against the bars of his cell's gate. She heard a second voice, which she later
discovered was the voice of the deceased, shouting and crying. She then heard
the appellant rudely telling the deceased to keep quiet. She heard a banging
and it sounded like the deceased was crying in pain. She said that the
appellant swore at the deceased and at the police. She became frightened. After
a long while she no longer heard the deceased crying. The banging also stopped
and the appellant stopped shouting and swearing. The Section 220 admission made
on behalf of the appellant was handed in as Exhibit I. In it the appellant
admitted the results of the forensic tests and the cause of death of the
deceased.
[14] The forensic report revealed that blood that matched that of the
deceased were found on the shoes, pants, shirt and underpants of the accused.
The blood of the appellant was found on the clothes of Inspector Rein.
[15] The appellant was interviewed by Captain Coerecius of the internal
investigation branch. The appellant told Captain Coerecius that he had not
alleged that Inspector Rein had assaulted the deceased.
[16] The appellant testified that he approached Inspector Rein who was
in a police van and asked for a lift to the police station. At the community service
centre he decided to obtain an affidavit from the police stating who he was as
he had lost his identity document and he wanted to use the affidavit when he
applied for employment. As he left the service centre, Rein assaulted him and
took him to the police cell. He confirmed that the deceased was lying in the
front lobby of the cell. He claimed that Rein then instructed him to go into
the back part of the cell, and locked the gate. At that point he said that the
deceased tried to run out of the cell. He said that Rein chased the deceased
and assaulted him. Thereafter Rein unlocked the inner cell gate.
[17] After Rein left, the appellant said that he found the deceased
lying in a pool of blood and he was unconscious. The appellant said that he
turned the head of the deceased to the side to ease his breathing as he was
lying face down. He had blood on him and decided to wash it off for fear of
being infected with HIV/Aids. Despite Constable A.J. Hugo testifying about the
appellant's aggressive behaviour the appellant himself denied that he was an
aggressive person.
[18] It is clear that the appellant was angry at being locked in the
police cell. The evidence of Inspector Rein, Inspector Terblanche, Inspector
Palmer, Constable Grootboom and Ms Sender all corroborate that allegation. The
circumstantial evidence all point to the only reasonable inference being that
the appellant assaulted the deceased to the point where the latter succumbed to
his injuries and died.
[19] The version of the appellant is not reconcilable with the
probabilities nor doe's it point to a reasonable explanation for the death of
the deceased and accordingly does not cast reasonable doubt on the state's
case.
[20] I can accordingly find no basis for interfering with the
conviction.
[21] When considering the brutality of the offence and the youthfulness
of the deceased who clearly was no threat to the appellant against the
youthfulness of the appellant and the fact that he has been a troubled young
man, an appropriate punishment would have to be a period of direct
imprisonment.
[22] To the extent that the appellant is capable of appreciating the
wrongfulness of his conduct, he should suffer the consequences of his brutal
and unjustified anti social behaviour. There is no misdirection in the conduct
of the trial in the court a quo nor in the judgment of that court. The sentence
does not induce a sense of shock nor is it startlingly inappropriate. There is
accordingly no basis for interfering with the sentence.
I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.
ALLIE , J
I agree and it is so ordered
VELDHUIZEN, J
