‘Intoxication’ acquittal row
A ROW has erupted over the shock acquittal of a man who admitted strangling his lover while highly intoxicated.
On Friday the family of the slain Ashika Singh, 35, were shattered after the accused, Mark Donovan Ramdass, 31, walked free.
Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel concluded that while the court was satisified that Ramdass had strangled Singh at her Merebank home in March 2013, the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had possessed criminal capacity.
The judge said Ramdass, who had consumed excessive alcohol and smoked crack cocaine on the night he killed his girlfriend, had been too drunk.
Ramdass told the court he could not remember killing Singh because he had alcohol-induced amnesia.
This week the Advice Desk for Abused Women said the ruling was disconcerting. Founder Anshu Padayachee said Singh could not get justice, even in death.
“The court, in acquitting Ramdass, has sent out the wrong message that it is okay to be intoxicated and to commit a murder. Being drunk ought to be used as an aggravating factor and not as a mitigating issue by Ramdass’ defence to get him off scot-free”.
Padayachee questioned whether police had done blood alcohol tests on Ramdass after he was arrested. “It boggles the mind. According to the judgment, Ramdass, after killing Singh, had jumped into her courtesy car and driven (in his intoxicated state and apparently not in his right frame of mind) to Mahatma Gandhi (Point) Road, where he abandoned the vehicle before he ended up at the beach in Umhlanga Rocks,” she said.
“It is beyond comprehension how he travelled from Merebank to the city without causing an accident.”
A law expert at Wits University, Stephen Tuscon, referred
POST to the case of S v Chretien.
Seven years after the Supreme Court of Appeal held in that case that intoxication may constitute a defence, and in the wake of public criticism, the legislature intervened by enacting Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The section states that “any person who consumes any substance which impairs his or her faculties, while knowing that such substance has that effect, and who then commits any act prohibited by law, shall be guilty of an offence”.
The amendment also provided for the commission of such an offence while impaired to be considered an aggravating factor during sentencing.
Tuscon said he did not know if the Durban High Court had considered the amended act.
In his ruling Judge Ploos van Amstel said he was unable to find that Ramdass, who had pleaded not guilty, had faked his ability to remember the events.
Naresh Singh, the Singh family’s spokesman, said the court’s ruling was a travesty of justice. “We intend asking the Directorate of Public Prosecutions to lodge an appeal.”
A relative of Ramdass said while they were relieved he was freed there was no cause to celebrate. “We feel the pain which Ashika’s famly is experiencing. We pray God will grant them strength.”