Pretoria - After 18 months of freedom, two of the so-called Waterkloof Four will have to return to prison.
Reinach Tiedt and Gert van Schalkwyk had to report to the Zonderwater Prison outside Cullinan on July 10, the Pretoria High Court ordered on Wednesday.
Judge Hans Fabricius set aside the warrant for the pair’s release signed on December 15, 2011. He found that their sentences should not have been converted into correctional supervision.
This was after they had served three years and four months in jail of an effective 12-year sentence for murdering a homeless man in 2001.
The two were released on December 19, 2011, following an order by Pretoria Regional Court magistrate Peet Johnson after a recommendation by the Zonderwater Correctional Supervision and the Parole Board.
The magistrate was assured that the pair were ideal candidates to have the remainder of their prison sentences converted into correctional supervision - house arrest and community service. It was said that both were model prisoners who showed remorse for what they had done and who had a bright future.
Judge Fabricius did not dispute this in his judgment - he ordered the pair’s return purely on a point of law.
The magistrate at the time ordered the pair’s release on correctional supervision in terms of section 276 A of the Criminal Procedure Law. An application in terms of this section may not be made if the prisoner has more than five years to serve.
The pair’s sentences were due to expire only in February 2020, which at the time of their release was more than nine years away.
Judge Fabricius relied on a judgment by a Full Bench in the Western Cape in a similar matter. He said it was clear that an application for conversion of a sentence of imprisonment to correctional supervision could not be brought and certainly not be granted where the prisoner’s date of release was more than five years in the future.
His judgment followed an application by Correctional Services, which asked that the pair’s release be overturned as they did not qualify for it at this stage. The department vowed at the time of the pair’s release to fight the decision in court.
Tiedt and Van Schalkwyk may appeal against this judgment or wait until February, when they are due to have a parole hearing.
Their two co-accused, Frikkie du Preez and Christoff Becker, have remained in jail, serving their 12-year terms while their former mates have had 18 months of freedom.
They are also eligible to be considered for parole next year.
The pair’s lawyer, Jenny Brewis, said the judgment did not come as a surprise to them, in the light of the Cape Town High Court’s decision a week before this application was heard.
“My clients are obviously very disappointed at the outcome, as they have moved on with their lives and have made valuable contributions to society, as taxpaying citizens. I did prepare them that there might be a possibility that they would be ordered to go back to jail,” Brewis said.
“I cannot comment on the judgment at this stage, other than to say that we will study it and then decide whether we will appeal, and on which grounds.
“We have 15 court days to launch our intention to appeal.”
Brewis said the pair would not have to return to prison next month if they appealed, as the effect of the order would be suspended pending appeal proceedings.
She also said that her clients wanted space at this time and did not want to speak to the media.
Minutes after the judgment, Chris Tiedt, father of Reinach, was told by the Pretoria High Court that his son had to return to prison. “I cannot comment. I don’t know what to say. I will leave this in the hands of my lawyer,” he said.
Judge Fabricius said in his judgment it would be “grossly inhumane and unfair” to order the pair to return immediately to prison.
He said they obviously had work and family responsibilities and they should be given time to arrange their affairs, so as to cause the least disruption to others who might be affected by this order. “That a court has to act according to law does not mean it cannot act with humanity and compassion.”
The judge also did not slap them with a costs order, saying it was not their fault the law had been misconstrued by the magistrate and parole board. He said while the murder of the homeless man who could not defend himself was repulsive and he (the judge) could not understand what went through the young men’s minds at the time, it was not appropriate to refer repeatedly to the brutality of the offence.
He said it was not his responsibility to tell Correctional Services how to deal with the pair regarding possible parole, but he could give his view.
“I would say to the department, if asked, that they are suitable candidates for a conversion of their sentences to correctional supervision at a date which is not longer than five years prior to the date of release.”
Judge Fabricius said if they became eligible for parole before this, they should be favourably considered. He said magistrate Johnson couldn’t be blamed for ordering the pair’s release as he had acted on the facts before him, although he did not have the jurisdiction to order the release.
Pretoria News