Durban - A metro policeman, wrongly convicted on trumped up sex-related charges opened by his landlord who had wanted to evict him, has spoken about his nine years of “hell”.
Ronson Pillay’s conviction and sentence for indecently assaulting the 13-year-old daughter of his landlord and former police colleague was recently set aside by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Pillay, 37, who had been sentenced to four years imprisonment, which was later reduced to two by the Provincial Appeal Court, said he had been vindicated and now wanted to get his life back.
His life, he told POST on Tuesday, had been on hold for the past nine years after the complainant’s father, also a Durban metro policeman, had opened the “very serious and unsubstantiated charges” against him.
He was alleged to have also exposed himself to the girl and taken a photograph of his private parts.
Although convicted, Pillay had not spent time behind bars as his bail had been extended pending his two appeals.
Pillay said he had always known he was innocent but was treated like a criminal by colleagues and civilians alike.
“I was removed as an officer in the field and moved to the charge office. My firearm was confiscated after the complainant’s father, who was my landlord at the time, complained to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate that I had threatened him and his family with a state-owned firearm,” he said.
“It is an understatement to say that my life came to a standstill after I was charged for the crimes I did not commit.”
Pillay, who became a policeman in 1998, said he would have been promoted from the rank of sergeant to inspector but had skipped the exams because of the charges he then faced.
“I hope that people who shunned me will accept the ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal that I am not a criminal and was not involved in any indecent acts. I prefer working in the field and want to do that,” he said. “My other aim is to become a captain in a few year’s time.”
Pillay said he and his attorney, Ravindra Maniklall, were now planning to sue the former colleague “for wrecking my life”.
In the judgment penned by Judge DH Zondi, the Supreme Court of Appeal said that magistrate Jenny Pillay had misdirected herself and that Ronson Pillay had been wrongly convicted.
The policeman had initially lodged an appeal in the Provincial Appeal Court which, however, confirmed the conviction on four charges of indecent assault but halved the four-year prison term imposed by the trial court.
Judge Zondi said Magistrate Pillay had erred by “unreservedly” accepting the complainant’s evidence as being the most probable version.
“From the reasoning of the trial court, it does not appear that it fully appreciated the dangers inherent in the acceptance of the complainant’s evidence and the need to subject her evidence to proper scrutiny to avoid the risk of a wrong conviction,” the judge said. “The trial court misdirected itself by applying the wrong standard of proof in determining the guilt of the appellant (Pillay).
“It (the trial court) rejected as far fetched and fanciful the appellant’s suggestion that the charge against him was orchestrated by the complainant’s father to have him evicted. That approach was incorrect ‘ said Judge Zondi.
The judge said the State, in its argument at the appeal, had agreed that there were serious shortcomings in its case.
“The incidents which resulted in the appellant’s conviction lacked the clarity required to conclude that the appellant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court must fully appreciate the dangers inherent in the acceptance of the evidence of a child witness.”
According to Judge Zondi the trial court failed to interrogate the complainant’s evidence-in-chief, her cross-examination, discrepancies in her evidence and her statement to police in June 2007.
“One of the glaring inconsistencies in her evidence compared to what is reflected in her statement to police is the incident relating to her claim that the appellant, after (exposing himself), had taken a photograph of his (private parts) on his cellular phone. The aspect of the photograph was not mentioned to police,” said the judge.
POST