Tougher penalty looms for rapist after R2 000 fine

A MAN who walked free after he was given a suspended sentence for raping his exgirlfriend and trying to kill her, may receive a tougher penalty after all. Three years after the case was concluded, the state has won the right to appeal against his “shockingly light” sentence.

Although the deadline to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence is 30 days, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions only became aware of the 2013 case the following year, when it was published in the Sunday Times as part of a feature on lenient rape sentences.

The directorate brought an application in the High Court in Pretoria to allow a late appeal, and last week Judge Hennie de Vos ruled he would allow the request, as the DPP had “reasonable prospects of success on appeal” — meaning it is highly likely that an appeal court will increase the sentence.

Buti William Mtshali was convicted by a magistrate’s court in Limpopo of raping and attempting to murder a fellow employee at the game lodge where he worked.

They had previously had a relationship but it ended a year before the attack. He was her supervisor and in December 2012 she informed him she was quitting her job.

During her notice period he raped her and then tried to kill her, severely assaulting her with a pot lid, a rock and his fists until she blacked out.

She regained consciousness in the boot of the vehicle and when she began screaming, Mtshali stopped the vehicle.

He said he did not know what to do with her — then raped her again. Eventually she escaped and friends took her to hospital.

Among other injuries she had deep scalp lacerations, a grossly swollen face, a torn right ear and a fractured hand.

For rape, Mtshali was sentenced to five years in jail, all suspended, and for attempted murder, fined R2 000.

De Vos said the magistrate had put far too much weight on the fact that Mtshali had custodial care of two children after he got divorced.

The children were actually looked after by the grandparents when he changed employment. Although he was a breadwinner he was not the primary caregiver.

The magistrate also erred by not considering the impact on the woman of the attack, said the judge.

The magistrate’s judgment created the impression it was the woman’s fault and that she had brought the attack on herself. In addition, no account was taken of the severe psychological trauma and the physical scars that the woman suffered.

There was “not a single reference in the judgment” to the impact of the rape and attempted murder on the woman.

“The message sent to the community by imposing a suspended sentence where a woman

Testifying was so bad, I never want to do it again

was violently raped is in direct conflict, not only with the legislation . . . but also with the general trend of sentencing by the courts of South Africa and the message these courts strive to send out to the community,” the judge concluded.

The Directorate of Public Prosecutions welcomed the decision and said the appeal would be enrolled as soon as possible.

The victim, now 36 and living in North West, said she had given up hope that her attacker would ever get justice.

Many people were upset by the sentence, “but what could I do? I felt powerless . . . there was nothing I could do, so I just made peace with it.”

She said she would now leave it in the hands of the appeal court. “I really don’t want to go back to court. Testifying was so bad, I never want to do it again.” — Additional reporting by Monica Laganparsad