Durban - The Durban drama teacher facing allegations that he groomed and paid pupils to create pornography had no valid defence against the charges, raising the risk that he could be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.
This, compounded by the fact that he had lied to the court about his financial situation, withholding the fact that he had cash reserves of about R2.5 million while only offering to pay bail of R10 000, led to his being refused bail by Durban magistrate Paul Cartwright on Thursday.
The teacher – who avoids eye contact with anyone except his attorney, Nerissa Farrington – remained stoic as the magistrate pronounced that his release would not be in the interests of justice, nor in the interests of the children involved in the 11 charges he was facing and those not yet identified.
Last week the magistrate asked that the teacher – who cannot be named until he pleads – provide bond and bank account statements after he alleged that he had assets of R1.7m, including the Glenwood flat he owned.
These documents, which form part of the charge sheet, reflect that he owes only about R15 000 on the bond, and has R1.5m in a fixed deposit, R17 000 in a cheque account, R18 000 in a notice account and almost R900 000 in a money market account.
The magistrate described this as “somewhat disturbing and a cause for grave concern”.
“Had the court not specifically requested these documents, there can be little doubt that his true financial position would not be volunteered and I can only draw a negative inference from this… it casts aspersions as to his agenda and intentions should he be released on bail.”
He also commented on the teacher’s concession that “certain material was found in my possession” (when his house was raided by the police and his cellphone and computers were seized).
“He suggests he has an explanation for such possession. And then says that while both complainants are children as defined by the act, they are in fact over the age of 16, the age of consent.
“I find this explanation to be significantly troubling since nowhere in either act under which he is charged is there provision for a child, under 18 but over 16, to consent to any of the acts for which he is charged.
“So his admissions, in my opinion, significantly increase the chances of a successful prosecution and conviction and it is certainly not unlikely that he may well face a lengthy custodial sentence. This must surely increase the temptation to flee… it is nothing more than human nature.”
He said while the teacher had said he could not interfere with witnesses because the police had taken his phone and his computers, the State had pointed out that there were still unidentified boys on the footage and only he knew who they were.
“His attorney states that without these devices he has no means of contacting these children. But it is common knowledge that these phones can be backed up and the information retrieved. He certainly has the financial means to buy another phone and do this.”
Regarding evidence of his previous conviction dating back to 2003 which involved a sexual offence with a 15-year-old pupil when he taught at another school, the teacher claimed to have told the school where he most recently taught about this.
The investing officer could find no record of this declaration on his personal file.
The magistrate said this did not surprise him.
“Had he disclosed this to the principal and he was not dismissed (in terms of the law), it is unlikely it would have remained on his file since this would become the very rod with which to beat the relevant school or principal and risk the consequences.”
The teacher will appear in court again at the end of next month.
The Mercury