---

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

 

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

[NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY]

                                                                                       Case No: KS 17/16

        Argument Heard: 23-05-2017

                                                                  Judgment Delivered: 25-05-2017

In the matter between:

THE STATE

And

CHRISTIAN CORNELIUS JULIES                          Accused

Coram: Kgomo JP

SENTENCE

Kgomo JP

[1] Mr Christian Cornelius Julies is a 47 year old man of [...] J. S., Galeshewe Suburb Kimberley, Northern Cape. He has been convicted of 34 charges of a sexual nature which he committed between 24 March 2012 and 23 January 2015, a period of over three years. He was arrested on 22 February 2015 at Pampierstad (Hartswater), Northern Cape, where he had rented a room, less than a month after his final episode, attempted rape, in Mmabatho, North West Province.

[2] In respect of Counts 2 to 33 the accused has been convicted of rape.  The state invoked the provisions of s 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997 (the Minimum Sentence Act).  As far as Counts 34 and 35 are concerned he has been found guilty of attempted rape.

[3] The National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) had centralised the trial in the Northern Cape in terms of s 22(3) of the National Prosecution Act, 32 of 1998 (the NPA Act). The schedule that follows maps out the spiderweb spun by the accused as he criss-crossed certain towns in the Northern Cape and the North West Provinces, the dates on which he was at such destinations, the distances travelled between the towns (destinations) and the approximate overall (known) distance covered over the three (3) years as a fugitive from justice:

COUNT	DATE OF CRIME	TOWN (DESTINATION)	DISTANCE TRAVELLED
2 – 11	24/03/12 – 25/11/12	Kimberley	0
12 – 14	26/01/13 – 27/02/13	Ritchie	42
15	29/03/13	Kimberley	42
16	20/04/13	Ritchie	42
17	04/07/13	Kimberley	42
18	25/11/13	Upington	411
19	19/03/14	Mmabatho	560
20	12/06/14	Mothibistad	378
21	13/06/14	Kuruman	13
22	09/08/14	Kathu	60
23 – 24	26/09/14 – 03/10/14	Kakamas	312
25 – 27	28/10/14 – 08/11/14	Postmasburg	307
28, 29 & 34	20/11/14 – 24/12/14	Olifantshoek	85
30	02/01/15	Postmasburg	85
31	12/01/15	Mahikeng	518
32,33 & 35	18/01/15 – 23/01/15	Mmabatho	8
PLACE OF ARREST	22/02/15	Pampierstad/Hartswater	305
TOTAL OF DISTANCE TRAVELLED			3210

 

[4] This is how the accused committed the offences:

4.1    Without exception, all 33 complainants stated that the accused drew a knife or knives on them, threatened to harm or kill them if they did not cooperate or do as he commanded them to;

4.2    The accused warned each victim not to scream or else risked being “killed”, “butchered”, “having the knife driven through your body”, “risk being seriously harmed”, their bodies will be discovered by their next of kin the next day, etc.

4.3    All the complainants maintain that they were pounced upon when they were walking alone or were isolated. In other words, when they were easy prey or defenceless;

4.4    Invariably the complainants were from a tavern (shebeen) at night or early hours of the morning when they were surprised and grabbed, of course at knifepoint. It appears from the evidence that the accused stalked or followed his quarries from a “watering hole”.  

4.5    In 32 instances with a knife to the throat or side the women were abducted into a bushy area or isolated spot where they were raped. Relating to Count 25 (Postmasburg, pertaining to Ms TK) and Count 31 (Mahikeng, relating to Ms AOL) the rapes took place inside the complainants’ residences;

4.6    The accused ordered the complainants to undress only one leg of their pair of trousers and/or panty. He would then only lower his pair of pants to his knees before penetrating them vaginally. He would invariably order them to walk ahead and not to look back before he vanished.

4.7    The women that he targeted during the day he was very civil to and won their confidence. He was to them (or may be described as) “tall, dark and handsome”. He is proficient in Setswana, Afrikaans and English which facilitated his communication with his targets. The accused would then convince the ladies (always by themselves) that he needed to deliver money to his wife or girlfriend. He claimed his wife/girlfriend would not allow him to leave whereas he had a commitment elsewhere. Their trip would end up in a forbidden path. At the flip of a coin the saintly demeanour would morph into a ghastly devil. The knife or knives would be out.  The result would always be the same. He got his way.

4.8    Having regard to the evidence of the complainants, at no stage did the accused propose love to anyone of them nor did he solicit or seek their consent to have sexual intercourse with them;

4.9    During the intercourse he either drove or stuck the blade  of the panga (or huge knife) into the ground next to a complainant’s head where she would be lying  on her back but within reach of his dextrous hand or he would visibly place the knife within reach of his clutches;

4.10  He never used a condom nor did he offer to use it. On the contrary he rebuffed those who dared to implore him to employ it. He even got incensed when such requests were made;

4.11  On a number of occasions the complainants’ cellphones rang. The accused ordered them not to answer the call. On two occasions he instructed them to throw them away and on two other instances when the phone rang repeatedly he commanded that they be switched off.

[5] The record of proceedings is replete with accounts and narratives of the quadruple nightmare stages the victims of these ordeals had to endure:

5.1    First, the unexpected and sudden instillation of fear at knifepoint;

5.2    Secondly, the physical and emotional pain during the rape act;

5.3    Thirdly, the lingering anxiety of whether they were going to escape with their lives after the rape, having regard also to the preceding two predatory stages; and

5.4    Fourthly, the roller-coaster emotional and psychological ride that remained enshrined in the memories of the victims/survivors.  Each one asked herself: Have I been infected by a sexually transmitted disease?  What about my love relationship with my spouse or partner?  How would I handle the societal stigmatization if my ordeal comes to light?  For example:  One complaint withdrew the charges to normalise her love-life or pick up the pieces with her newly wed husband; yet two others were reluctant to lay charges fearing the same kind of stigma or be shamed.

[6] The rape survivors coped or handled the ordeal or trauma differently.  One described how her whole body and mind froze when the face of the man who won her trust a while ago morphed into a monster.  Another pleaded that her life be spared because she has a young child to take care of.  One other was afraid to give a wrong answer and told the accused he can take as long as he pleases with her.  Yet another was pressed and wet her pants because the accused would not let her do her thing with a modicum of decency, given the circumstances.  A plea for the use of a condom by others was like a red-flag to a Spanish bull.  A 17 year old virgin who plucked up some courage and pleaded for the retention of the sanctity of her body was rebuffed with:  “I don’t care.”

[7] It would be superfluous to regurgitate all these tales of woe because they are comprehensively captured in the judgment which led to the convictions.  For the class of cases already broadly alluded to there seems to be no fundamental differences that should impel a case by case differential sentence.  However, in respect of the charges for which a particular (minimum) sentence is ordained the sentences would have to be individualised.

[8] Ms PM, Counts 12 and 13, was raped twice at knife-point.  Once orally (per mouth) and once per vagina.    These counts would be taken as one for purposes of the imposition of an appropriate sentence.  Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 prescribes a sentence of life imprisonment in the event of : 

“Rape as contemplated in section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 –

(a)        When committed

(i)          In circumstances where the victim was raped more than once --- by the accused ---.”

[9] In Count 15 Ms GR, who was caused to wet her pants, was injured as follows (as described in the judgment):

“The J88, the medical examination report conducted by Dr Loggenberg on Ms GR, Exh “PP”, the contents whereof are consensually admitted, records at para C that: “General examination: Condition of clothing: Bloodstained, dirty, torn”.

Paras 5 and 6 reflect that:

‘5. 30 year old female, hv of sexual assault at 03h00 on 29 March 2013, O/E ; stab wound to (L) thumb pulmur area, also more superficial wound on (L) ring finger. Injury on this measures about 2x2cm / one on ring finger 1cm hand is neuro vuscularly intact and, --- no fractures present. No other physical injuries noted.

6. Mental health and emotional status: Distressed, rattled, jittery’.”

[10] Ms DNK, Count 17, was 19 years old and was warned that if she made any noise ”your people will find you here the next morning, dead.” Her mother described the situation as follows:

“--- her daughter knocked furiously on the door “in a way I was not used to………

‘Yes?  --- After I opened she came in she could not even talk she was just showing me saying mum there [in] the veldt, there [in] the veldt.  When I went out I wanted to see as to what was happening there in the veldt. I could not see anything, I even went out of the gate but could not see anything.

What was her emotional state when she was saying kwa nageng, kwa nageng?  --- She was very scared and she was crying terribly. I then asked her what happened, what happened there in the veldt.  She then told me that mum I was raped’.”

[11] Ms PUB, in Count 18, was 15 years old when she was raped in the Graveyard in Upington.  She was therefore under 16 years which makes the minimum sentence applicable in her case.

[12] Ms LK, Count 19, 19 years old, broke down more than once in court.  The judgment in para 123 reads:

“The complainant responded that her grandfather, with whom she stayed, was home that afternoon and evening and that she could not have been home only with the accused. It was not easy meandering through the complainant’s evidence as she cried bitterly throughout. The disbelief in her facial expression, her body language as well as her tone of voice to suggestions made to her by the defence spoke volumes. Hence the record reads in this regard:

‘HOF: Net so ‘n oomblikkie. Well, all those answers [by Ms LK] are given with a broken voice and as the witness is crying. She is crying now, okay. === Hy praat nie die waarheid nie.

Hof: Well, one other observation is how the witness throughout shakes her head as she is crying. Ms LK, should we continue?   === We may continue.’”

[13] Ms OVM, in Count 22, was 15 years old, and a high school girl when she was raped in Kathu.  He raped her from around sunrise on the morning of 09 August 2014 until about 14h00.  He slapped her face because she refused to open her legs.  When she did he “looked transfixed at her nakedness” and praised her “beautiful vagina.”  Because she was a virgin he boasted that he had deflowered her.  The minimum sentence provision is also applicable in her case.

[14] Ms IRP, Count 27, was 15 years old, (born on 27 February 1999) when she was raped on 08 November 2014 in Postmasburg.  She was still so traumatised that she testified through an intermediary on 26 October 2016 at age 17.  The judgment on conviction recounts the incident as follows at paras 165 – 167:

“[165]    The accused pulled her into a shallow donga. Ms IRP asked him what he was going to do to her. He said he wanted sex and nothing more, but using a profanity. (At this point the complainant became too emotional, broke down and cried. An adjournment was taken). On resumption: She told him that she was still a virgin. He told her he did not care. He ordered her to undress but she refused. He wrestled her to the ground as she repulsed him. He also throttled and slapped her.

[166]     In the course of the struggle the accused again threatened to stab her. He managed to undress her and himself. He raped her. As he penetrated her he hurt her genetalia and bit her on her chest and cheek. Ms IRP exhibited the marks in court.   The medical report also reflects “the love bites”, a misnomer, on the neck. The accused, after the act(s), berated her for making him struggle so much to get his will. Ms IRP dressed up quickly, while the accused was still putting on his clothes, and tried to make a dash for it. He caught her and told her they would walk side by side back into the residential area. He took out his cellphone and took a picture of her despite her protestation.

[167]     At some point the accused told Ms IRP to remain standing while he collected his wallet which he said he left behind. This afforded her the opportunity to flee. She made telephonic contact with her brother, Samuel, who collected her from the Traffic Department. Her evidence, that of her brother, Samuel, and the social worker’s (Ms Zanzi’s) report, and the complainant’s demeanour in court leave no doubt in my mind  that she was severely traumatised. The source thereof can only be the assaults meted out by the accused.”

[15] Ms ABL, Count 28, a self-declared Lesbian, was 16 years old when she was raped on 16 November 2014 in Olifantshoek.  Except to state that the accused did not rape her because of her sexual orientation, nothing more need be said.

[16] Ms CJD, Count 29, was 21 years when she was raped on 24 December 2014.  What also made her case unique was that her sandals slipped out in the bushes which the accused forced her into.  He made her walk barefoot and was badly pricked by the thorns.  He was cruel to her in more than one way.

[17] Ms C(S)B, Count 30, was 14 years old, and the second youngest of his victims, when she was raped.  He plucked tufts of hair from her skull when he tugged her by her long braids. He drew an Okapi knife on her.  When she took fright and screamed he admonished this little girl:  “Shut your mouth bitch.”  After the rape he warned her not to report to the police because they would “fiddle in her vagina.”  The poor girl was bewildered and disorientated.  She asked for directions from her tormentor.  The judgment reads from para 182-184:

“He walked her towards the residential area and stopped in the middle of nowhere. She started running, blindly. She noticed Asmandia Lower Primary School and regained her bearings.

[183] Ms C(S)B states that the accused assaulted her when she screamed. --- . When she reached home she viewed herself in the mirror. Her cheeks were swollen and her eyes were red from the mistreatment she was subjected to. She reported to her uncle Jacobus B. The latter testified that his niece was severely traumatised and emotional. Her face was swollen, her eyes red and her clothes soiled.  The police were summoned.

[184] Of significance are these findings by Dr Matsepane who examined Ms C(S)B on the same day; (Exh M):

‘B. General History

8. Conclusions

Minor girl with history of alleged sexual assault. A frontline bruise seen on right cheekbone; slight redness of right eye. Injury is caused by a blunt forceful object that is consistent with history. Injury not life-threatening”. Further down:

“F. Samples taken for investigation.

3.Conclusions

Minor woman with history of alleged sexual assault. Female genetalia normal. No evidence of previous sexual encounter. A small bruise seen at hymenal tissue at 7 o’clock. Rest of hymen intact. Increased friability at posterior fourchette that can be consistent with fiddling by a blunt object, beyond the labia minora’.”

The minimum sentence is clearly applicable to this case

[18] Ms KTL, Count 33, was 17 years old when she was raped in Mmabatho/Mahikeng on 14 December 2016.  It was daylight and she was in school uniform.  After being grabbed she managed to sprint away.  The judgment continues in paras 196 -198:

“The accused warned her to silence, told her that they are heading for the bush and caused her to remove her bright yellow school shirt. He reckoned it was recognizable and would attract attention. In the process she gave him the school bag to hold. She sprinted away. He caught up with her, grabbed her long hair and pushed her down. He then jerked her up with her school tie and used it as a dog-leash to tug her into the bush.

Ms KTL takes up the narrative graphically in these terms:

“And was there anything underneath the shirt? === It was just my brazier.

Okay. Now he is pulling you with your tie to the second tree? === I was already on the ground and I was fighting with him. He was beating me, hitting me with fists and he was also like banging my head on the ground.

Where was he assaulting you with clenched fists? === In the face.

Okay? === I was on the ground and I just gave in. I was wearing pantyhose. He pulled up my skirt and then he pulled me. He undressed me and he also undressed. I was lying there and he bend there on his knees.

Lying on your back? === Yes, on the ground. Where was the knife then, did you see it? === No. I think during our fighting at that place where we were fighting when he was chasing me the knife fell.

Okay, you were on your back now. === He undressed himself and then he inserted his penis into my vagina and had sexual intercourse with me.

Proceed, what happened thereafter? === I was scared and then after he finished my school bag has fallen somewhere and my phone and my shirt also.

During your resistance? === Yes. He then said that I must sit there, he will go and collect them for me. I sat there. He went there and I was scared at that stage now. He came back with them.

What did he bring, the school bag and the phone? === And the shirt.

Okay? === And the shoes. I got dressed and he accompanied me through the outer bush. He did not go out of the bush. Just before we reached the houses, when we could see the houses he told me that he was going to stand there and I must walk away. I then walked away. After I came out of the bush I called my mother. My mother met me halfway and then she took me there. I went home and then I left the bag at home. From there we went to the clinic, boarded a taxi and went to the clinic”. The police then took over.

The J88 (medical report) Exh “BBB” by Dr Motlhaping was handed in by consent and the contents thereof accepted. The evidence on this point reads:

‘Clinical findings: On the 21^st January 2015 at about 15h00 a female victim alleges she was from school when unknown man to her threatened her with a gun and a knife and took her to the nearest bush where he undressed and penetrated her vaginally without a condom. (a) Tender swelling right forehead. Bruises below right eye. Bruise below left eye. A bruise of 10mm in diameter around the neck. (e) Probably caused by school tie. Multiple abrasions on the back. Scratches above the right knee. Bruises on the anterior throat of the neck. Well orientated to the time and place.

Conclusion: The presence of bodily injury are consistent with alleged history of sexual assault. On the gynaecological examination: Point number 10: A tear observed at six o’clock at the posterior fourchette. Point number 11; Fossanavicularis, bruises ranging from 5 to 7 o’clock. And the conclusions: The presence of bruises and some of the genital injuries are consistent with the history of alleged sexual assault'.(own emphasis).”

[19]    Ms PK, Count 34, was born in May 2001.  Her birth was not registered.  Her aunt Ms MO satisfied the state, the defence and me that Ms MO’s evidence was credible.  She and Ms PK’s mother (her sister) gave birth within two months of each other to their children, one of whom was Ms PK.  Ms PK testified, through an intermediary.  When the attempted rape took place on 20 November 2014 she was a mere 13 years old.  The youngest of the accused’s victims.

[20]    The accused lured her away from her home under false pretences.  He abducted her into a donga.  She screamed.  He threatened to kill her and pushed her to the ground.  He was armed with a big knife.  Despite several attempts he was unable to penetrate her sexually, but ejaculated on her.  The small stature of the girl and her baby-face did not deter him.  She has now dropped out of school. 

[21]    Ms K(L)AS, Count 35, was the last known victim of the accused’s reign of terror.  She was 16 years old, from school and in school uniform, when the accused attempted to rape her.  The judgment at paras 208 - 210 records:

“[208]        The accused thereupon placed the knife in his back pocket. She reached for the knife but he warded her off. He then slapped her with an open hand and pummelled her with a clenched fist several times before producing the knife again. She called a truce. The accused ordered her to remove her tights and pantyhose of the left leg and said she must hurry up, but she doddered. He punched her again and again all over her body.  He spread his T-shirt for her to lie on and used her school bag as a cushion.

[209]         The accused undressed himself and laid on top of her, poised to penetrate her. She told him that he weighed down too heavily on her. He heaved himself up to give her some respite. In that process she gave him a hefty kick to his private parts, which angered him. He slapped and punched her some more. He attempted once more to penetrate her but an erectile dysfunction which had set in thwarted his intention. He scolded Ms K(L)AS and tried a penal arousal by shaking (“skud”) his penis but to no avail. He again castigated her for misfiring.

[210]         The complainant demonstrated how the accused wiggled his penis while clutching it. She then noticed that the accused had ejaculated over her vagina. She was unsure at what stage this happened. Fearing pregnancy this 16 year old urinated there and then in an effort, in her mind, to expel/eject the sperms.  She thus urinated on his T-shirt. He wrung it dry and wore it and left running, leaving the complainant on the scene where she cried and screamed. I suppose retired Public Protector, Adv Thuli Mandonsela, would have characterised Ms K(L)AS as “The Feisty One, who got away”. She fought like a tigress to protect the sanctity of her bodily integrity and her dignity from being violated.”

[22] I have declared the accused a serial rapist.  He never slept.  He prowled the streets night and day.  The rapes and attacks took place just about at every hour of the day or night.  When he was finally cornered on 22 February 2015 where he had set up base in Pampierstad near Hartswater he had criss-crossed the Northern Cape and the North West Provinces and had covered over 3210 km on the run.  It is unquestionable that if he was not stopped in his tracks, belatedly though, the devastation of girls and women’s lives would have continued.

[23] When he testified the accused showed no remorse or emotions.  During the trial he sat stony-faced as his victims sobbed, cried, broke down in court or relieved the nightmares, and nightmares they were.  To the contrary he instructed his counsel, whose shoes I wish on no one, to put false statements to the already traumatised complainants.  As the record and the judgment show that sadistic attitude heaped scorn to injury, which the complainants could not take.  Asked why he did those bad things to the complaints, now that he has been shown to have been a rapist, he persisted that he was implicated falsely.

[24] When he testified before his conviction the accused falsely described himself as charmer and a gentleman.  He claimed that all the girls and women gave consent to the sexual acts and that the isolated bushy places where the attacks took place were agreed upon.  No, he was not a fugitive from justice, he was merely selling soft goods; that no one ever saw.  The truth is that he was a pedestrian and unemployed.

[25] The accused states that after leaving school he was conscripted to South African Defence Force for five years but was retrenched with the advent of democracy when the SADF was integrated with the Liberation Movement Forces (Mkhonto-We-Sizwe (MK) and APLA). That he then worked for Lewis and Bradlows Furniture Stores for a combined period of 6 years.

[26] The accused says that he is married and has three dependent children.  One at University and two at High School, aged 20, 18 and 12, respectively.  He claims that he still is a consultant for an International Funding Institution and maintains his dependants with the income derived from it.   According to him this income has not dried up notwithstanding his incarceration since 22 February 2015, more than two years later.  This is a made up story.

[27] The solemn promise that Chief Justice Mahomed  made in 1997 in S v Chapman [1997] ZASCA 45; 1997 (2) SACR 3 (SCA) at 5b-f  is yet to materialise when he declared:  

“Rape is a very serious offence, constituting as it does a humiliating, degrading and brutal invasion of the privacy, the dignity and the  person of the victim.

The rights to dignity, to privacy and the integrity of every person are basic to the ethos of the Constitution and to any defensible civilisation.

Women in this country are entitled to the protection of these rights. They have a legitimate claim to walk peacefully on the streets, to enjoy their shopping and their entertainment, to go and come from work, and to enjoy the peace and tranquillity of their homes without the fear, the apprehension and the insecurity which constantly diminishes the quality and enjoyment of their lives.

The appellant showed no respect for their rights. He prowled the streets and shopping malls and in a short period of one week he raped three young women, who were unknown to him. He deceptively  pretended to care for them by giving them lifts and then proceeded to rape them callously and brutally, after threatening them with a knife. At no stage did he show the slightest remorse.

The Courts are under a duty to send a clear message to the accused, to other potential rapists and to the community: We are determined to protect the equality, dignity and freedom of all women,  and we shall show no mercy to those who seek to invade those rights.

We communicate that message in this case by an order that the appeal of the appellant against his convictions and sentences is dismissed.”

[28] In S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) at 481h – 482a Marais JA stated:

“B. Courts are required to approach the imposition of sentence conscious that the Legislature has ordained life imprisonment (or the particular prescribed period of imprisonment) as the sentence that should ordinarily and in the absence of weighty justification be imposed for the listed crimes in the specified circumstances.

C. Unless there are, and can be seen to be, truly convincing reasons for a different response, the crimes in question are therefore required to elicit a severe, standardised and consistent response from the courts.

D. The specified sentences are not to be departed from lightly and for flimsy reasons. Speculative hypotheses favourable to the offender, undue sympathy, aversion to imprisoning first offenders, personal doubts as to the efficacy of the policy underlying the legislation, and marginal differences in personal circumstances or degrees of participation between co-offenders are to be excluded.”

See also S v Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) at 50a -54b (paras 18-24).

[29] It must be recognized that the accused cannot be called a first offender when he committed 34 offences between 24 March 2012 and 23 January 2015.  The fact that he has no previous convictions counts for nothing. I can find no substantial and compelling circumstances regard being had to the aforementioned factors.  Mr Fourie conceded this much.  State counsel, Mr Makhaga, has urged for minimum sentences to be imposed more or less along the lines set out hereinbefore.

[30] I therefore sentence the accused as follows:

1.           Counts 12 and 13 (the rape of Ms PM) are taken together for purposes of sentence:  The accused is sentence to Life Imprisonment.

2.           Count 15 (the rape and serious assault of Ms GR):  The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.

3.           Count 18 (the rape of Ms PUB who was 15 years old):  The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.

4.           Count 22 (the rape of Ms OVM who was 15 years old):  The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment. 

5.           Count 27 (the rape of Ms IRP who was 15 years old):  The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.

6.           Count 30 (the rape of Ms C(S)B who was 14 years old and badly beaten): The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.

7.           Count 33 (the rape and serious assault of 17 year old Ms KTL): The accused is sentenced to Life Imprisonment.

8.           Count 6 (the rape of 16 year old Ms KP); Count 23 (the rape of 17 year old Ms LCB);  Count 25 (the rape of 23 year old Ms TK in her home);  Count 26  (the rape of 17 year old student, Ms EPM);  Count 28 (the rape of the 16 year old Lesbian (Ms ABL);  Count 29 (the rape of 21 year old Ms CJD, made to walk barefoot through the thorns);  Count 31 (the rape of 16 year old Ms AOL in her home);  The accused is sentenced to 16 (sixteen) years imprisonment on each one of the 7 (seven counts).

9.           In respect of Count 2 (the rape of Ms PV);  Count 3  (the rape of Ms TJMB);  Count 4 (the rape of Ms JJ);  Count 5 (the rape of Ms GP);  Count 7 (the rape of Ms CML);  Count 8 (the rape of Ms MPM);  Count 9 (the rape of Ms SEP);  Count 10 (the rape of Ms JN);  Count 11 (the rape of Ms RPV);  Count 14 (the rape of Ms CH);  Count 16 (the rape of Ms PJ) Count 17 (the rape of Ms DNK);  Count 19 (the rape of Ms LK); Count 20 (the rape of Ms TPM);  Count 21 (the rape of Ms KEMG);  Count 24 (the rape of Ms BM);  Count 32 (the rape of Ms MPM):  The accused is sentenced to 15 (fifteen) years imprisonment on each of the 17 Counts.

10.        Count 34 (the attempted rape of 13 year old Ms PK):  The accused is sentenced to 10 (ten) years imprisonment.

11.        Count 35 (the attempted rape and assault of 16 year old Ms K(L)AS:  The accused is sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.

12.        It is ordered that all the sentences run concurrently with the 7 (seven) sentences of Life Imprisonment (which Life Imprisonments will also run concurrently with each other).

13.        It is ordered that the accused’s name (Mr Christian Cornelius Julies) be recorded forthwith in the Register of Sex Offenders.  In terms of s 41(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 the accused may henceforth not:

13.1  Be employed to work with a child in any circumstances;

13.2  Hold any position, related to his employment, or for any commercial benefit which in any manner places him in any position of authority, supervision or care of a child, or which, in any other manner, places him in a position of authority, supervision or care of a child or where he gains access to a child or places where children are present or congregate;

13.3  Be granted a licence or be given approval to manage or operate any entity, business concern or trade in relation to the supervision over or care of a child or where children are present or congregate; or

13.4  Become the foster parent, kinship care-giver, temporary safe care-giver or adoptive parent of a child.

13.5  The accused must further comply with the provisions of sections 46, 47 and 48 of the same Act which provisions have to be explained to him by his counsel, Adv T. Fourie.

_______________________                 

F DIALE KGOMO                               

JUDGE PRESIDENT                           

Northern Cape Division, Kimberley        

 

On behalf of the State:             Adv R Makgaga & Adv Q Hollander  (Director Public Prosecutor) Kimberley)

On behalf of Accused:              Adv T Fourie (Legal Aid South Africa)     

---