Bail likely for porn accused teacher

Published Nov 4, 2014

Share

Durban - The tide appeared to turn on Monday for the Durban drama teacher facing charges of creating child pornography with teenage pupils when a Durban High Court judge indicated he would grant him bail – albeit with strict conditions which could see him losing his R1.7 million home if he were to break any of them.

While Judge Mahendra Chetty was yet to finally rule on the teacher’s bail appeal – saying he would do so later this week – he said he needed time to consider the conditions and amount of bail.

This was after State advocate Alistair Walters conceded that it was in the interest of justice to release the teacher from Westville Prison where he had been detained since his arrest at the end of August.

The reason for the concession was an agreement between himself, the judge and the teacher’s advocate, Paul Jorgensen, that the initial bail application in the Durban Magistrate’s Court – when bail was refused – had been conducted under the wrong schedule of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The teacher – who cannot be named until he pleads – had been required to show that it was in the interests of justice for him to be released, whereas the State should have borne that onus.

This shift meant the State, and not the teacher, had to leap over the higher bar of proof.

The teacher faces 11 charges relating to using children for the creation of child pornography. The present charges relate to two pupils whom, it is alleged, he groomed and paid.

The issues at the initial bail application before Durban magistrate Paul Cartwright were that he had a previous conviction for a similar offence involving a pupil at another school dating from 2003, and that he had misled the court about cash reserves of R2.5m.

The magistrate also found that he had no valid defence to the charges because someone under the age of 18 could not consent to the creation of pornography.

On Monday, Jorgensen said the issue of his finances had become “confused”, because the teacher and his attorney had believed they only had to declare what was readily available and not investments.

He pointed to the fact that the teacher owned a property and if he absconded he would lose it.

Jorgensen also argued that on the teacher’s version of “consent”, it was unlikely he would serve time in jail, but rather be given a suspended sentence.

He pointed out that under the present law, the teacher would not have received the previous conviction because it was no longer a crime to have sex with someone under the age of 18.

Judge Chetty commented that one of the problems with this type of offence was that it could be perpetrated by cellphone and he asked how one could ensure that the teacher did not have access to the technology he was alleged to have used in the commission of the crimes.

Jorgensen said the only way was to make it a condition of bail and, should he reoffend, it was highly likely his victims would come forward.

Walters suggested that it was unlikely, if released on bail, that the teacher would be “so stupid” as to reoffend.

He agreed that the property was a “substantial asset” to abandon and said: “There is no evidence that he will flee or reoffend.

“The best solution would be to place conditions on him to make it clear that he will face consequences.”

The judge canvassed the option of his possibly agreeing to police monitoring of his cellphone and computers “even though it will be an invasion of his constitutional right to privacy”, and said he wanted to investigate further a “novel” suggestion by Jorgensen that should he break any condition, his home would be forfeited to the State.

The teacher did not attend Monday’s hearing. He is due back in the magistrate’s court in early December.

The Mercury

Related Topics: