Magistrate slammed in Jayde case
Lawyers for murder accused Panayiotou submit that Beeton relied on ‘thumb-sucked evidence’
IN a scathing notice to appeal against the denial of bail for Christopher Panayiotou, the magistrate was accused of relying on thumb-sucked evidence and exaggerating the quality of the state’s case.
Lawyers for Panayiotou, who is accused of orchestrating his wife’s murder, said magistrate Abigail Beeton had approached the evidence in such a way that it would be almost impossible for any accused in a similar matter to be granted bail.
In court papers, lawyer Alwyn Griebenow said Beeton’s judgment was riddled with contradictions and she had too easily come to the defence of the investigating officer.
“The magistrate created the impression that she was interested only in what the state had to say and, in particular, was overly impressed by the alleged strength of the state’s case, while at the same time ignoring comments by [Panayiotou], his family and court deponents.”
Griebenow confirmed yesterday that they hoped to take the appeal to the Grahamstown High Court as soon as next week, although a date had not yet been arranged.
Panayiotou, 28, is accused of arranging the murder of his wife, school teacher Jayde, 29, in April.
It is alleged he paid a bouncer at his club, Infinity, Luthando Siyoli, 31, to hire hitman Sizwezakhe Vumazonke, 30, to kidnap and mur- der Jayde. All three are in custody.
Panayiotou was denied bail by the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on June 5, after the court found he had failed to show exceptional and compelling circumstances existed, permitting his release.
In papers filed with the court this week, Griebenow said Beeton had erred in several major aspects. He said she erroneously: Made findings in favour of the state even though such evidence was contradicted by far more reliable evidence from the defence; Dismissed numerous material factors put to the court by Panayiotou; Elevated the concept of exceptional and compelling circumstances to a degree not required by law; and
ý Found Panayiotou to be a flight risk and that there was a likelihood he would interfere with witnesses, despite the fact that there was no reliable evidence supporting this.
“The magistrate’s findings were self-contradictory in many ways.”
Griebenow said that on the one hand Beeton had accepted “unconvincing opinion evidence” by investigating officer Lieutenant Kanna Swanepoel as to the dire financial status of Panayiotou, but then – in direct contrast to this – found that his offer to pay R50 000 bail was too little and that he had more than enough money to flee the country.
“Counsel repeatedly said to the magistrate that the amount of bail was in her hands.”
In addition, he said Beeton had incorrectly elevated the strength of the state’s case to be the be-all and end-all of the hearing, and was incorrect in her belief that the onus was on Panayiotou to show that he would in all likelihood be acquitted of the charges at trial.
“The magistrate, with respect, unfairly underestimated and undermined the quality of [Panayiotou’s] evidence placed before her, and exaggerated and placed far too much emphasis on the quality of the case presented by the prosecution.”
Griebenow disagreed with Beeton’s notions that Panayiotou was at fault for not informing the court that he had dual citizenship be-
REPORT CONTINUES FROM P1
tween South Africa and Cyprus.
He said Panayiotou did in fact inform his lawyers of this and it was they who had decided it was not relevant to the bail application.
On the other hand, he said Beeton “too easily came to the defence of Swanepoel” when he incorrectly testified that Panayiotou had applied for the Cypriot passport after Jayde’s disappearance.
“Despite correctly finding that [Panayiotou] had never previously clashed with the law, was born and bred in the Port Elizabeth area, owned three businesses and was strongly supported by his family, the magistrate simply pushed these very important factors aside.”
He said factual claims by Panayiotou – such as his having more than R3-million in assets – were met with feeble, unimpressive, unconvincing and half-hearted attempts by the state to contradict them.
“[Beeton] nonetheless preferred the hearsay evidence and the thumbsuck of Swanepoel, whose knowledge of [Panayiotou’s] financial situation was as close to zero as one could possibly imagine.
“She elevated Swanepoel’s clearly biased and factually inaccurate comments on the alleged dire financial circumstances of [Panayiotou], while rejecting the evidence of the accused, his parents and his two accountants, all of whom had intimate knowledge of his financial affairs.”
He said Beeton, without proper reasoning, had also dismissed Panayiotou’s complaints about the appalling conditions at St Albans Prison, where he is being detained.
“[Beeton] downplayed the strong submissions by the defence that the state’s case was a one-trick pony . . . relying on evidence of a Section 204 witness to whom two cautionary rules would apply on trial, further that the entrapment of the accused may well be subjected to a trial-within-a-trial.”
He said state advocate Marius Stander had chopped and changed his mind about the status of Siyoli, only to conclude on the final day of argument – when prompted illegally by the magistrate – that he was a Section 204 witness.
A Section 204 witness testifies in exchange for immunity.
“In approaching the evidence as she did and the simplistic and selective way she applied case law, [Beeton] approached the concept ‘exceptional and compelling circumstances’ in such a way that it would be well-nigh impossible for any person charged with a Schedule 6 offence to get bail.”
All three accused are due back in court on August 13.