IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted in the Paarl Regional Court of two counts of rape and one of indecent assault and sentenced to life imprisonment on a count of rape of Bernadine Heyns (count 1) to two years imprisonment for the count of indecent assault on Gurt Alkaster (count 2) and ten years imprisonment on the count of rape of Lorraine Alkaster (count 3). This appeal is in respect of conviction and sentence. The main grounds of appeal raised in respect of conviction in the appellant's heads of argument are the following:

2.	That Bernadine Heyns was not properly sworn in and that her evidence should be disregarded, but that in any event Bernadine was not a competent witness.
3.	That the learned magistrate erred in various other respects by rejecting the appellant's evidence in favour of accepting the evidence of the complainants.

We have carefully considered each of these grounds and have come to the conclusion that the learned magistrate's convictions cannot be faulted for certain reasons. Firstly, the magistrate was careful to consider that the complainants were single witnesses of the events to which they testified as and of themselves, however she did correctly have regard to the fact that in respect of all three charges, there were strong cross-corroborating evidence. Such corroborating evidence was to be found in the evidence of the complainant's mother, the pastor and the complainant's younger brother, that is in respect of the first charge; in the complainant's mother and the appellant's own evidence under cross-examination in respect of the second charge and in the complainant's emotional state and circumstances in respect of the third charge.

The evidence of the appellant on the other hand cannot reasonably possibly be true in our view. Besides that, none of the complainants were challenged or really tested under cross-examination. The appellant's version was never properly or coherently put to any one of them, besides for which the appellant, on his own evidence, made an inconsistent and unreliable witness. He conceded in his evidence that he may have touched the complainant, Gurt Alkaster, near his penis and that he admitted to the pastor that he had sex with Bernadine Heyns, albeit once, and his explanation for that was properly rejected by the magistrate.

The appellant did not indicate in his heads of argument what an appropriate alternative sentence to life imprisonment would be. Before us it was suggested in argument that it would be between 15 years optimistically and 20 years pessimistically. We are of the view that in light of the seriousness of the charge, a sentence of 25 years would be appropriate. We do not believe that the sentences made in respect of the second and third charges ought to be interfered with, even bearing in mind that the appellant was in custody for almost two years.

STEENKAMP. AJ

SALDANHA. J