In die saak tussen:

en

DIE STAAT							Respondent

UITSPRAAK

THRING, R

In die streekhof is die appellant van een aanklag van verkragting aangekla en, nadat hy daarop onskuldig gepleit net, is hy deur die landdros skuldig bevind, soos aangekla, en tot lewenslange gevangenisstraf gevonnis. Hy kom in hoer beroep teen beide die skuldigbevinding en die vonnis.

Die klaagster in die saak is n dame wat op die datum van die beweerde verkragting, 13 Desember 2006, 35 jaar oud was. Toe sy getuig het was sy 36 jaar oud. By die verhoor het dit geblyk dat sy van kinds af aan epileptiese aanvalle ly; haar geestesvermoens is nie soos wat dit behoort te wees nie. Ek spreek   dit   so   neutraat   moontlik   uit   deur  te   se   dat   sy ten minste tot 'n mate geestelik gestremd is. Sy het nooit skoolgegaan nie. Die vervolging se saak teen die appellant is egter byna uitsluitlik op haar getuienis gebou. Daar is wel mediese getuienis gelei wat die klaagster se getuienis tot Vi mate bevestig dat sy wel verkrag is, maar hierdie getuienis. naamlik, van die beserings wat sy opgedoen het, is van geen waarde wanneer dit by die identiteit van die persoon wat haar sou verkrag het kom nie.

Op daardie aspek, wat deur die appellant heftig in geskil gepiaas is, staan die getuienis van die klaagster alleen en onbevestig. Nieteenstaande die feit dat die aanklaer by die aanvang van die verhoor aan die Hof aangekondig het dat die klaagster "slightly mentally retarded" was het die landdros die klaagster sonder meer soos h normale getuie laat insweer en getuig. Die landdros het versuim om enige ondersoek in te stel na die bevoegdheid van die klaagster om te getuig, en of sy die aard en uitwerking van die eed verstaan het, al dan nie.

In haar uitspraak waar sy die getuienis van die klaagster as die waarheid bo redelike twyfel aanvaar het, het die landdros die volgende gese:

"The complainant presented as a 37 year old lady with a speech defect, not a mental defect, nothing in her appearance and demeanour indicated a mental problem. When the oath was administered she indicated, that is by nodding, that she understood what the Court was saying. She speaks very slowly, otherwise she took the oath without any problems, except for being slow."

Die landdros het ook gesS dat die klaagster die Hof as 'n eerlike persoon beindruk het. Soos ek reeds gese het dit is duidelik dat die appellant hoofsaaklik op sterkte van die klaagster se getuienis skuldig bevind is.

Die staat het daarna egter ook die getuienis van h kliniese sielkundige gelei, mej. Susan Manson. Sy het die klaagster in September 2007 klinies ondersoek en sekere toetse op haar uitgevoer. Sy het Vi verslag voorberei wat sy in haar getuienis beaam het, en wat as Bewysstuk "A" voor die Hof geplaas is. Sy het getuig dat sy die sogenaamde "Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales" op die klaagster toegepas het. In haar verslag se sy:

"The scales cover three areas, communication, daily living skills and socialisation. In the communication domain her score fell in the range of severe intellectual disability (IQ range 20 to 25 to
35 to 40). In the daily living skills domain her score fell in the range of mild intellectual disability (IQ range 50 to 55 to approximately 70). In the socialisation domain her score fell in the range of moderate intellectual disability (IQ range 35 to 40 to 50 to 55). Her adaptive behaviour composite fell in the range of severe intellectual disability. Her age equivalents were, communication: four years eight months; daily living skills: nine years two months; and socialisation: six years three months."

Wat die klaagster se verstand van seksuele aangeleenthede betref het me Manson in haar verslag gese:

"Corronique was given basic sex education by her mother. On interview she knew names for male and female genitals. She was not able to demonstrate understanding of what sexual intercourse is or its consequences. In my opinion because of her low level of functioning and her lack of understanding of sexual matters Corronique is not able to consent to sexual intercourse."

Onder die hoof "competence as a witness" het mej. Manson die volgende geskryf:
"Corronique was able to give a brief narrative account of the alleged rape and answered simple clarifying questions. She did not seem to grasp the purpose and proceedings of a trial. She did understand the difference between truth and falsehood. She has some abilities which would enable her to be a witness. However she indicated at the end of the second interview that she did not want to talk about the alleged rape in court. I felt that this was due to her anxiety. This could compromise her ability to act as a witness. If she is given adequate court preparation and helped to work through her resistance, and if she is able to build rapport with the prosecutor prior to the trial she may be competent to act as a witness."

Mej. Manson se gevolgtrekking was:

"Ms Corronique Daniels, aged 37, is a woman with a history of epilepsy and lack of schooling who was allegedly raped by Mr Robert Adams. On interview she was found to be functioning in the range of moderate intellectual disability with aspects of adaptive   functioning   below   this   level.      After completing this assessment it is my opinion that Corronique is not currently able to consent to sexual intercourse. I feel that she will need intensive court preparation and support in order to become competent to act as a witness."

Artikel 194 van die Strafproseswet, No 51 van 1977 lui:

"Niemand wat skyn of bewys word te ly aan geestesongesteldheid of aan verstandsverbystering vanwee dronkenskap of verdowingsmiddels of iets dergeliks, en wat daardeur van die behoorlike gebruik van sy sinne beroof word, is bevoeg om getuienis af te le terwyl hy aldus aangetas of onbekwaam is nie."

Artikel 193 van die Wet bepaal:

"It is submitted that the complainant had the mental age of a child. The Court did not hold an enquiry to ascertain if she was indeed a competent witness and whether she understood what it meant to take the oath. It is further submitted that, because of the abovementioned facts, the evidence rendered by the complainant is inadmissible."

					

Ek stem saam