AFP

.

The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) didn’t just lose its case yesterday, it was severely reprimanded by a Pretoria magistrate, too.

Lawyers for DCS had applied for leave to appeal against the release of the Waterkloof two’s Reinach Tiedt and Gert van Schalkwyk from Zonderwater Prison, following two court orders, after which their 12-year sentences were converted to correctional supervision in December.

The application for conversion of sentence was filed by the Zonderwater Correctional Supervision and Parole Board and yesterday Magistrate Peet Johnson said the National Commissioner of Correctional Services had no right to interfere with the decision of the board as he was not involved in the original application.

In his judgment, Johnson said the contemptuous and shocking behaviour of the department had serious repercussions. “If a government department refuses a court order, how can we expect the public to do so?” he asked.

The grounds for the appeal, filed last month, were based on four main points.

The Department of Correctional Services claimed Johnson erred in law by considering the application of the board as Tiedt and Van Schalkwyk did not qualify for conversion of sentence.

The department claimed Johnson erred in hearing the application as the national commissioner had not been informed in writing of the date of the hearing.

He stated that Johnson erred by fixing the date of placement for their release as it was the duty of the board.

The department claimed Johnson erred in not satisfying himself that the provisions of the Criminal Procedures Act had been correctly followed as well as not allowing relatives of the deceased to attend the hearing.

Advocate M Sithole SC, who appeared on behalf of the department, seemed poorly prepared, first making weak arguments based on an outdated section of the Criminal Procedures Act and then enquiring why the deceased’s family had not attended the hearing.

Johnson pointed out that the deceased was an unidentified homeless man, possibly an illegal immigrant from a neighbouring country, and no family members attended the hearing as none could be located.

He pointed out that the initial hearing had been attended by a representative of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who was also the prosecutor in the Waterkloof 4 case.

He said the DPP representative did not oppose the conversion of sentence and at the time said that the application was well prepared and correct.

Johnson asked Sithole how the commissioner could not have known about the date if Tiedt and Van Schalkwyk were brought to court by the department and accompanied by Correctional Services officers. “It is ironic that the persons who are making the allegations were not even in court that day.”

Sarita Stonehouse, mother of Van Schalkwyk, who was not in court, later said they were relieved that they had a professional legal team which was well prepared.

Tiedt’s father, Chris, said he was aware of the outcome and did not want to comment.

Jenny Brewis, the pair’s lawyer, said the department “took a shot in the dark”.

Zachary Modise, chief deputy commissioner of Correctional Services, said the department had noted the decision. “Our legal team will study the outcome of the court.”