Petrol bomber in bid to strike out trial ‘hearsay’

THE outcome of the appeal by Australian petrolbomber Shumsheer Ghumman could hinge on the Western Cape High Court’s ruling on hearsay evidence relied upon by the State to convict him.

The chartered accountant is appealing against his conviction and sentence for crimes, including attempted murder, relating to an incident in January 2011 when he petrol-bombed the Clifton home of the family of Hannah Rhind, a UK woman with whom he had become obsessed. He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He met Rhind at a dinner party in London in 2009. But the relationship soon became too serious for Rhind’s comfort and she broke it off. Ghumman’s obsession with her eventually led her to take him to court in London, where he was convicted of harassment in September 2010.

He later travelled to Cape Town and tried to enlist the help of a hit man. When this plan failed, he made petrol bombs and threw them at the Rhinds’ luxury home in the early hours while they slept.

Ghumman’s appeal came before Judge Anton Veldhuizen and Acting Judge Nape Dolamo on Friday, with his senior counsel, Francois van Zyl, arguing that certain hearsay evidence presented at the trial should not have been allowed.

The admissibility of the hearsay evidence of one State witness in particular, security worker Bernard Schaeffer, is being contested. It related to Schaeffer’s exchange with Siyabulela Yalezo, who, it emerged in court, had been hired by Ghumman to kill Rhind’s father, Philip. But Yalezo told Philip Rhind the plan.

Addressing Van Zyl, Judge Veldhuizen said that except for circumstantial evidence, the only other evidence the State had was Schaeffer’s. Yalezo, in his testimony, had not confirmed Schaeffer’s evidence about the exchange as the State had expected. If Schaeffer’s hearsay evidence didn’t stand, this would present a “problem” for the State.

Judgment was reserved.