The bail appeal of a man who allegedly raped his stepdaughters and influenced their mother to have one withdraw a protection order against him has been dismissed by the Cape Town High Court.
It is alleged that the man had committed an act of digital (finger) penetration against his stepdaughter who at the time was 14 years old. He had another pending matter for allegedly committing another similar offence against the younger sister of the current complainant.
The presiding officer of this matter Judge Derek Wille said the alleged incident with the first victim occurred about 11 years ago. However, it was not reported and when the younger sister reported what had happened to her the first victim got the courage to report what the accused had done to her when she was younger.
“What I found of great significance was the evidence that emerged that the mother of both victims and wife to the appellant (accused) had allegedly influenced one of the victims to withdraw a protection order, which was granted against the appellant in connection with his alleged deviant conduct,” the Judge said
Arguing in his defence, the accused said the victim was falsely accusing him of rape as she had a boyfriend with whom she is in a sexual relationship.
Among arguments raised in support of the appeal was that the lower court erred in finding that there was a likelihood that the accused would evade his trial and interfere with State witnesses. There is a likelihood that he would commit further crimes or interfere with the investigation.
Judge Wille said the court of first instance had to determine, by weighing up the available evidence, whether it was legally entitled to conclude that the prosecution had a prima facie case against the appellant.
To assist the court of first instance in this weighing-up process, the accused was required to adduce convincing evidence to establish that the case against him was weak or that he was likely to be acquitted.
The State submitted that the accused failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the case by the prosecution against him was and is a poor case.
The court found that the accused had already interfered with the administration of justice, as he had also persuaded his wife to influence one of the victims to withdraw the protection order.
“In this case, there exists a well-grounded fear of interference of the witnesses for the prosecution,” Judge Wille added.
Another finding was that the circumstances of the accused were not exceptional enough for him to be granted bail despite his submission that he was caring for his ex-wife who has since passed on.
“I cannot conclude that the lower court's judicial officer was wrong when weighing up the appellant’s circumstances against the seriousness of the charges against him and the interests of society. Thus, the finding that the appellant did not provide any exceptional circumstances causing it to be in the interests of justice to grant him bail was not wrong,” he said.