Rapist stepdad’s appeal dealt a blow

THE Western Cape High Court has turned down an appeal by a man serving life imprisonment for impregnating his 13-year-old stepdaughter claiming she had consented.

He had turned to the high court in hopes of overturning the conviction and five years imprisonment sentence on the count of sexual assault. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment on each count of rape.

Western Cape High Court Judge Judith Cloete remarked that the Wynberg Regional Court correctly concluded that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence, or that the imposition of life imprisonment would be disproportionate to the crimes of which the man was convicted.

The child had not reported that she had been raped three times by her stepdad, who at the time of the incidents was 47-years-old, until her mother noticed white pre-lactation fluid on the black bra she was wearing as she prepared to take a morning bath in preparation for church on April 17, 2022.

After she disclosed what had happened, the mother, under the guise of attending church since her husband was in the house, took the child to the police station where the matter was reported and the man was arrested on the same day.

A report compiled by a doctor at the Thuthuzela Clinic in Heideveld confirmed the girl was about 27 weeks pregnant (6 to 7 months). She gave birth to her stepfather’s son on May 6, 2022 when she was just 14-years-old.

The court said the appellant had little choice but to admit paternity given that DNA results proved that there was a 99.9% probability that he was the child’s biological father.

While admitting to having penetrated the child’s private parts and touched her breasts, he disputed that the incidents occurred on diverse occasions during the period in question. All three incidents occurred on the same day, according to him but he could not recall the date.

“Further details of his version emerged during the evidence led by the state. These were that the complainant seduced him by showing him photographs of naked individuals having sexual intercourse, and that she willingly participated in the incidents,” according to court documents.

The trial court had found that the teenager was consistent in her testimony that she was scared of the appellant because he had previously assaulted both her and her mother, and felt threatened into submitting.

“Similarly she was unshaken in her evidence that on each occasion she had tried to push the appellant away but he was too strong; on the second occasion he warned her not to tell her mother; and on the third occasion the appellant only desisted after her friend from next door arrived at the front gate, the complainant shouted out the friend’s name, and the friend opened the gate to enter the property. Finally, the complainant gave a consistently clear and cogent explanation why she did not tell her mother earlier, namely that she was scared of what the appellant might do to both of them.”

She also denied having shown the man photographs as alleged.

In what the court described as an embellished version, the man testified of how the teenager allegedly seduced him, going as far as claiming her stepdaughter had “craved“ sexual attention from him.

“Contrary to his earlier version that all three incidents occurred on the same day, he testified that they constituted one single continuous event. Again, contrary to his earlier version that he could not recall when this occurred, he was suddenly able to remember that it was in August 2021. He downplayed the evidence of the complainant that he had previously assaulted her, maintaining it was only a matter of two slaps because she asked him for money, was insolent, and he had become 'a little bit angry'.” He also conceded that both the child and her mother were already afraid of him prior to the rapes and sexual assault."

Judge Cloete remarked: “This was a particularly heinous series of offences, and the record reflects the devastating impact on the complainant and her mother, both in their evidence and the complainant’s victim impact report. This is one of those cases where the appellant’s personal circumstances and clean prior record must necessarily recede into the background.”

Cape Times