Paedo’s appeal bid fails
A CONVICTED paedophile lost in the Supreme Court of Appeal when he challenged an alleged agreement by the State not to pursue direct imprisonment if he admitted guilt.
Andries van Heerden pleaded guilty to five charges of sexual assault, one of indecent assault and one rape charge in the Paarl Regional Court last year for crimes involving boys in 2013.
He received five years’ direct imprisonment for rape and suspended sentences for the other charges.
In an application to the Western Cape High Court, Van Heerden appealed the sentence and said his confession was as a result of an agreement between his counsel and the State prosecutor to not seek a custodial sentence if he admitted to the crimes.
His appeal was dismissed in the high court and Van Heerden then took it to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which also dismissed it last week.
Van Heerden’s legal team argued they had discussed the case with the State prosecutor before trial and had proposed he plead guilty to all the charges in exchange for an agreed non-custodial sentence.
They argued that the State prosecutor had said she would be “amenable” to the agreement on condition the boys’ parents approved.
The counsel also alleged the State prosecutor told them not to submit a plea proposal to the director of public prosecutions as it would be timeconsuming, with counter-proposals, and rather enter into a plea agreement on an informal basis. But the State denied the allegations.
On the day of sentencing, the two counsel’s requests for sentence differed and after an adjournment, Van Heerden’s counsel approached the State prosecutor about the alleged breach of her undertaking.
The State prosecutor said she was approached to consider a formal agreement, but dismissed it immediately, pointing out that where an accused was charged with rape, she was not able to make such a decision.
Judge Zukisa Tshiqi summarised the State’s argument: “She admits that she went to speak to the parents of the complainants, but states that it was at the request of (Van Heerden’s) counsel, who requested her to approach them and hear their views on the proposed non-custodial sentence…
“The parents, so states (the State prosecutor), indicated they were not really concerned about the sentence the court imposed as long as (Van Heerden) acknowledged that he performed the indecent acts on their children.
“After she relayed the parents’ stance to (Van Heerden’s) counsel, the defence counsel again tried to persuade her to enter into a plea and sentence agreement, to which she again stated that she was not authorised to do.”
Judge Tshiqi dismissed Van Heerden’s appeal. francesca.villette@inl.co.za
@FrancescaJaneV