Cape Town - A convicted and sentenced rapist has been granted leave to appeal after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled that if “alleged shortcomings in the analysis of evidence” was considered, a different conclusion could be reached.
Acting SCA Judge Violet Phatshoane set aside the Western Cape High Court’s decision to dismiss Jovan Maree’s application for leave to appeal, finding the trial court had committed a number of misdirections, including the “lack of a proper holistic analysis of the evidence, in particular the version presented by the State, upon which the onus rested to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.
Phatshoane held that there was a reasonable prospect that another court on appeal might consider the statutory minimum sentence imposed to be disproportionate to the crime.
Maree, 32, stood trial in the Parow Regional Court where he was found guilty on four charges – rape, sexual assault, attempt to commit a sexual offence and exposure of his genital organs. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Maree had appealed against his conviction and sentencing in the regional court and high court, where both applications failed. After this he filed an application with the SCA for special leave, which was granted.
According to details that emerged during the trial, Maree and his wife’s cousin (the complainant), who often visited the couple on weekends, had been smoking dagga while Maree’s wife was at work.
It was the complainant’s version that Maree had forced himself on to her while she was seated on a couch.
She alleged he had made “odd facial gestures: licking his lips and winking at her” before he offered her a massage which she agreed to and “in the process, his hands slipped on to the sides of her breast and under it”.
During trial, Maree denied raping the 23-year-old, and “in respect of the fondling of her breast and private parts”, he argued that it was consensual.
He denied that he attempted to rape her or that he had exposed his genitalia, further arguing that the acts were consensual.
Phatshoane in judgment said the complainant’s evidence “had to be approached with caution to determine whether it was not only credible but also reliable.
“The trial court did not take proper account of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ respective cases; neither did it objectively evaluate the evidence against all the probabilities and improbabilities on both sides in order to reach a fair outcome,” said Phatshoane.
Cape Times