South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal >>
1997 >>
[1997] ZASCA 45
| Noteup
| LawCite
S v Chapman (345/96) [1997] ZASCA 45; 1997 (3) SA 341 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 277 (A); (22 May 1997)
Download original files |
PDF format
RTF format
REPORTABLE
Case No: 345/96 KP.A:A 674/94
In the matter betweenGRANT CHAPMAN Appellant
v
THE STATE Respondent
The appellant in this matter was convicted on three counts of rape in the Magistrates' Court and sentenced to seven years imprisonment
in respect of each count. In terms of Section 280(2) of Act 51 of 1977 the sentence in respect of count 1 was ordered to run concurrently
with the sentence imposed in respect of counts 2 and 3. The effective period of imprisonment imposed on the appellant was therefore
14 years.
An appeal against these convictions and sentences was pursued in the Cape Provincial Division of the then Supreme Court. That appeal
was dismissed by a full Court consisting of two Judges.
2 The attack on the conviction of the appellant in this Court was premised on substantially the same grounds which were articulated
in the Magistrates Court.
We have given careful consideration to both the detailed written and oral submissions in support of the attack on the Magistrates
reasons. We have not been persuaded that the Magistrate misdirected himself in any relevant or material respect, in his assessment
of the evidence and in his findings of fact, pursuant thereto. The guilt of the appellant on all three counts was established beyond
reasonable doubt, by the witnesses who testified on behalf of the prosecution, assessed against the facts which were common cause,
and the objective circumstances. The full and careful judgment of the Magistrate justified his conclusion that the evidence given
by the appellant could not reasonably possibly be true.
During the course of the argument there was some debate on what was described as the "rule" in cases of sexual offences,
which was said to require special caution in dealing with the evidence of the complainant in such cases. It is unnecessary for the
purposes of this case to analyse whether or not there is such a "rule" and if there is, whether its existence or ambit
of its application needs to be reviewed, having regard to the Constitution. Even assuming (without deciding) the existence of the
rule and its applicability in the present case, in favour of the appellant, we are satisfied that the Magistrate was justified, in
coming to the conclusion which he did and in convicting the appellant on all three counts.
Counsel for the appellant contended that we were entitled to interfere with the sentence imposed on the appellant, on the grounds
that it was "startlingly inappropriate".
3 We are unable to agree. An effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment is undoubtedlya severe sentence, but the Magistrate did not misdirect himself in any relevant respect in
imposing that sentence.
Counsel contended that the Magistrate was not justified in imposing the sentence because the appellant had sustained some brain injury
in consequence of an accident which had taken place after the commission of these offences.
We disagree with that submission. Although the appellant did sustain some damage to his brain, the evidence established that the appellant
retained an average IQ of about 111. He fully appreciated the force and relevance of the questions put to him in cross examination
and was capable of rationality and even cunning and deception in his evidence. The prison authorities have facilities, which would
enable him to receive such medical treatment as he needs for his condition.
The Magistrate gave consideration to all the other circumstances impacting on the appellant, but he correctly balanced such circumstances
against the legitimate interests of the
community.
This in our view is a correct approach. 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.
4 The rights to dignity, to privacy, and the integrity of every person are basic to the ethos of the Constitution and to any defensible
civilization.
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 street 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.
The convictions and sentences of the appellant are confirmed.
5
I MAHOMED CHIEF JUSTICE
H J O VAN HEERDEN JUDGE OF APPEAL
PJJOLIVIER JUDGE OF APPEAL
6Counsel for the Appellants: J C Marais
Appellants Attorneys: E G Cooper & Sons Incorporated
Bloemfontein
Counsel for the Respondent: A A De Lange
Respondents Attorneys: Attorney General
Bloemfontein