Ex-teacher, 60, guilty of rape
Convicted of sexual grooming and assault charges too
FORMER school teacher Neil le Roux shook his head slowly as he was found guilty of rape, sexual assault and sexual grooming in the East London Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning.
Despite the severity of the crimes, Le Roux’s bail was extended until July 24 for evidence before sentencing.
Minutes after his conviction he was seen chuckling while talking to his defence advocate, Neil Schoeman.
Reading his 45-minute judgment, magistrate Ignatius Kitching said the 66-year-old, who pleaded not guilty to all counts, had not impressed the court with his testimony and that state prosecutor Bonginkosi Mafa had proved “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Le Roux was guilty.
Kitching said Le Roux had abused his position of trust and authority at a top primary school to manipulate and commit sexual offences against the three complainants in a modus operandi that was premeditated and predatory.
Le Roux faced five counts against two student teachers and a Grade 7 pupil in his class. Kitching dropped one count of sexual assault due to duplication.
In his hard-hitting judgement, the magistrate said the student teachers, aged 32 and 29, had looked up to Le Roux as a mentor and father-figure, but he took advantage of his authority to rape one and sexually assault the other at the school.
In the rape case, the student teacher testified she had experienced a brain freeze after being cajoled into meeting Le Roux in his classroom after hours on the pretext that he wanted to get to know her outside the confines of the academic context. She said he produced champagne and snacks, played music on his laptop, asked her to dance and switched off the light before sexually assaulting and raping her.
“She never expected this turn of events and tried to keep a [physical] distance between them, but he kept putting his hands on her buttocks until she got tired and he imposed his will on her,” said the magistrate.
“Her subsequent failure to report this was because shame and fear resulted in her silence.”
Kitching said her refusal to kiss him and her pushing his hands away constituted a “clear no”.
In his testimony Le Roux had insisted the sexual encounter had been consensual, but Kitching rejected this outright. “Submission can never be equated with consent,” he said.
“He planned that encounter and pounced on her. He knew she was vulnerable and would not walk out.”
He said the schoolgirl, who was 13 when Le Roux became her Grade 7 teacher, had felt “entrapped” by the much older man who used his position as a trusted family friend and popular teacher to kiss and hug her and make inappropriate sexual comments.
He ruled that Le Roux’s use of elaborate metaphors was not to motivate the girl academically and personally as he had testified, but were in fact a ruse to manipulate her.
“His emphasis on ‘pushing the boundaries’ had nothing to do with life skills but was to manipulate and exploit a young child for a sexual relationship.”
He said Le Roux had “exploited the young girl for his selfish and distorted pleasure” and that he agreed with her mother’s testimony that he had been preparing her daughter for sex.
Said Kitching: “There was no reason not to doubt the veracity of her [the girl’s] evidence”.
He said Le Roux’s habit of parking his car a distance from the girl’s home when he gave her lifts from school in order to have lengthy discussions with her were “more than suspicious”, as was his comment to the child that the inner thigh was the sexiest part of a woman’s body.
He found the girl’s evidence could be accepted “in totality”.
Kitching also found Le Roux guilty of sexually assaulting the 29-year-old student teacher and found that he had hugged her tightly and licked her ear after a school Valentine’s Day dance.
The magistrate said he believed the testimony of all three complainants.
He said Le Roux’s modus operandi in all three cases was consistent and strategic. He had told all his victims to relax and had offered both student teachers alcohol to “soften” them.
“The liquor was not there by chance.”
Following the verdict, Le Roux sat in the dock with his eyes closed and both nodded and shook his head while propping himself up with a cane.
Asked for comment after the conviction, the schoolgirl’s mother said: “I am very relieved that he has been convicted, but no conviction or sentence can compensate for the trauma my daughter and family have had to go through at the hands of this man.”
Le Roux’s advocate Neil Schoeman was instructed by attorney Roger Smith. —