Durban - The Durban drama teacher accused of paying his pupils to create porn videos has been forced to produce his bank and bond statements to prove how much money he has and how much he can really afford to pay in bail.
Thursday’s ruling by the magistrate hearing his bail application will also give the State an opportunity to question how the teacher, who was earning about R10 000 a month, paid some of his alleged victims R2 000 for naked pictures, R7 000 for performing in videos and paid one boy a total of R35 000 over six months this year for sexual performances.
The teacher, who cannot be named until he has pleaded, claims he can afford only R10 000 for bail. His attorney, Nerissa Farrington, submitted to magistrate Paul Cartwright that “this is a lot of money for him”.
She has also submitted that he has assets valued at R1.7 million, including the two-bedroom flat he owns in Glenwood, and because of this he is not a flight risk.
The teacher - who has a previous conviction for sexually assaulting a schoolboy - has also offered to relocate to Joburg pending the trial.
He is presently facing 11 charges including using children for child pornography and possessing, procuring and creating child pornography.
During argument in the bail application on Thursday, his attorney said he had a constitutional right to liberty and there was no real evidence that he would abscond or that he would interfere with the investigation or witnesses.
She said in any event the police had already secured his computers and cellphone and had statements from two witnesses and two others had agreed to give statements.
“That he was in a position of trust - a teacher - does not automatically disqualify him from bail,” Farrington said.
She also suggested that the state had “split charges” in an attempt to make the matter “more serious than it really is”.
But prosecutor Val Melis said this was not so and the charges related to different “specific incidents” and more charges were likely to be added as the police scoured videos and photographs and identified other possible victims.
She said there was always a risk that he may interfere with witnesses because he was aware of the schools they attended and, in some cases, their home addresses.
“He is aware that many of them have a financial Achilles heel, which is why he targeted them in the first place. This still makes them vulnerable and it has been known for people to elect not to testify or to retract their statements when money changes hands.
“And the evidence shows that he has a remarkable ability to groom and manipulate boys - some of whom are already in crisis because of what they have been subjected to.”
She also accused the teacher of being dishonest in his bail application, citing the fact that he alleged he had told the headmaster and chairman of the governing body of the school about his previous conviction “when there is no record of this at all”.
She said the best interest of children was paramount and this was a clear case where the interests of the children should come first.
After a meeting in chambers between the magistrate, prosecutor, defence and investigating officer, the magistrate adjourned the matter until next week when he said he would make a ruling on bail after being given the financial documentation.
Arrangements were being made to keep the teacher in police cells, rather than at Westville Prison, to facilitate this.
The Mercury