Woman liable for falsely accusing ex-husband of rape

A Cape Town woman who falsely accused her ex-husband of raping her and beating her is liable to pay him damages for malicious prosecution and defamation, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled.

The five judges were divided. Three ruled that she should not escape liability for falsely accusing her ex of “a most heinous crime”.

But two judges said the evidence showed that at the time, she honestly believed that he was her attacker, that she had been abused during her marriage, that she had been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that, according to witnesses, the attack was “trauma upon trauma”.

The appeal was lodged by the ex-husband, named as GC, against a ruling in the Western Cape High Court. The court had dismissed his claims against his wife, JC, and his claims against the minister of police and the National Prosecuting Authority for wrongful arrest and detention.

Evidence during the initial trial, which lasted 15 days, was that the couple lived on a farm in Ceres. They divorced in July 2012. GC had gone to a local casino on 17 September 2012 and spent the night at the hotel with his girlfriend. That same evening, someone broke into JC’s house, raped her and tied her up on the kitchen table with wire. She was rescued by her son early the next morning and called a friend. When asked who had done it, she blamed GC. She said she did not want to lay a charge but was persuaded to do so.

In her statement to the police, she referred to him having “mad eyes” saying he “stared into my face” and threatened her.

When GC was arrested, he provided proof of receipts from the casino and hotel. The following day, detectives drove to the hotel and viewed video footage which confirmed his alibi.

However, he was still arrested. He appeared in court where the matter was postponed for seven days after which he was granted bail. Charges were eventually withdrawn a year later.

SCA Judge Azhar Cachalia (with Judges Christiaan der Merwe and Daniel Dlodlo concurring) said by the end of the initial trial there was no dispute that GC had not attacked her and that his alibi was beyond any doubt.

“Her lawyers sought to make the case that she honestly believed that he had attacked her… that she was suffering from PTSD at the time,” the judges said.

To support this, they used the evidence of two expert medical witnesses, one a psychiatrist, who said she believed GC had been “triggered” when she was attacked.

Cachalia found fault with the reasoning of the high court, saying it was “almost impossible to glean” and appeared to rely on the medical experts, although conceding that they were not independent. The court “perplexingly” also assumed that the lighting was poor at the time of the attack.

It thus concluded that the “objective, independent evidence belies the presence of malice”.

–

His alibi was beyond any doubt