Two “brothel-keepers” convicted of racketeering charges under organised crime legislation and facing up to 30 years in prison will now almost certainly get off scot-free after a Pietermaritzburg High Court judge ruled that their trial had been unfair because of poor interpretation.
While Judge Esther Steyn ordered that the trial against Basheer Sayed and his Thai wife, Somcharee Chulchumphorn, be started afresh in front of a new Durban Regional Court magistrate, it is unlikely that this will happen.
This is because the key witnesses – Thai prostitutes who testified they had been subjected by the pair to “debt bondage” and forced to work to pay off R60 000 before generating any profit for themselves – have since returned to Thailand.
The Mercury reported last year that both this case and another involving allegations of brothel-keeping were in jeopardy because Thai speakers are unwilling and possibly afraid to act as interpreters in cases against their fellow countrymen.
Sayed and Chulchumphorn were facing 30 years in jail or a fine after being convicted by Durban Regional Court magistrate Trevor Levitt of running the brothel in Bartle Road, Umbilo.
It was said to be SA’s first conviction for racketeering relating to prostitution and human trafficking.
They challenged their convictions ahead of sentence in a review application heard recently by Judge Steyn in which they complained that the interpreter – who covered her head and face with a scarf to block her identify – had not been properly sworn in and had not been fluent in English, making it difficult for the trial court to understand what was being said.
Through their advocate Pingla Hemraj, SC, they argued this had tainted the entire proceedings, meaning that the convictions should be set aside.
The State argued that this “belated objection” should be viewed with caution, and said it was not in the interests of justice to order that the trial begin afresh because the witnesses had gone back to Thailand.
The judge, in her ruling handed down on Monday, said it appeared that the trial court had not enquired into whether the interpreter was suitably qualified and competent, although the record showed she was sufficiently conversant in English.
She said it appeared the State was suggesting the interpreter’s inability to understand what should have been interpreted should be excused because she was covered with the scarf, exposing only her eyes, which must have led to her speech being distorted and her hearing being affected.
“There is no record of any application to disguise her identity. The fact that the court allowed her to wear a headscarf begs the question whether her identity was ever revealed in open court when she was sworn in,” she said.
Judge Steyn said she had no doubt that the irregularities during trial had a bearing on its fairness, and the accused’s participation had been compromised and their rights violated. - The Mercury