Judge allows Hewitt to appeal his sentence
But former tennis champion’s child rape, assault conviction stands
CONVICTED paedophile Bob Hewitt has been granted leave to appeal his six-year jail sentence but it’s a gamble that could see him spend more time behind bars.
The for mer tennis champion, 75, was convicted in March of the rape of two former students Suellen Sheehan and Theresa “Twiggy” Tolken, who were not even teenagers at the time of the abuse. He was also found guilty of indecently assaulting a third complainant, who may not be named by court order.
Last month, High Court Judge Bert Bam sentenced him to six years in jail and ordered him to pay R100 000 in fines to help fund campaigns against abuse of women and children.
Yesterday saw Hewitt and his new lawyer, Johann Engelbrecht, approach the Pretoria High Court for leave to appeal the conviction and sentence.
Engelbrecht argued the defence’s case had been prejudiced because Bam had disallowed their attempts to call back Sheehan for further crossexamination. This would have addressed alleged inconsistencies between her court testimony and an interview she later did with Carte Blanche.
Bam said this factor had been brought to the court’s attention and he had told Hewitt’s previous lawyer, Terry Price, Sheehan’s media statement had no bearing on the court processes.
“I said I wasn’t concerned with a trial by media.”
Engelbrecht also tried to argue the case had been prejudiced by Bam’s alleged refusal to allow a defence criminologist to testify in mitigation.
However, Bam was adamant this was not true, as he had told Price he would have to prove the relevance of such testimony. He had never stopped Price from bringing a criminologist to the stand.
Engelbrecht said the judge should have taken into account the credibility and mental capacity of the complainants at the time of the rape and indecent assaults, rather than weighting the conviction on their current mental state.
Bam said he had addressed the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, in totality in his judgment.
The lawyer argued the three love letters his client had written to Tolken, in which he made reference to not being a “sex maniac”, were written after the rape, meaning they were not part of the alleged grooming campaign mentioned in Bam’s judgment.
He argued that while Sheehan had testified that the pain was “excruciating” when Hewitt had raped her, there was never any evidence of physical pain for any of the complainants. If she was telling the truth, during Tolken’s rape, when she said that the penile penetration was hurting her, Hewitt immediately stopped, a major mitigating factor.
He also argued no psychologist had been called to quantify the amount of psychological damage to the complainants.
These were the reasons he believed another court would have made a different decision when convicting and sentencing his client and placed more weight on the mitigating factors, such as Hewitt’s age, health and the length of time that had passed since the crimes.
In her response, prosecutor Carina Coetzee argued that, regarding the refusal to extend Sheehan’s cross-examination, the media reports did not form part of the court record and agreed with Bam that they had no bearing on the trial.
Regarding the credibility of the witnesses, she mentioned the court had rightfully seen the pattern of Hewitt’s modus operandus, and that because it was proved that the complainants had never collaborated, the court had recognised the likelihood that their claims were true by similarity alone.
Coetzee said the letters written to Tolken were the “millstones around (Hewitt’s) neck that contradicted his version”.
She insisted no court would consider Bam’s sentence to be “startlingly inappropriate” as Engelbrecht had argued.
In his ruling, Judge Bam said he would provide in-depth reasons within seven days but leave to appeal the conviction had been denied.
“The state’s case was overwhelming,” he told the court.
However, he acknowledged that imposing a sentence in such a unique case, with so many mitigating and aggravating factors, was very difficult. It was for this reason that he had granted the application for leave to appeal the sentencing.
He also allowed Hewitt’s bail to be extended, while he files for his appeal, but he had to remain at his home in Port Elizabeth unless he required immediate medical attention.
Outside court, Engelbrecht told the Saturday Star the legal team would pursue the sentencing appeal and would petition the Supreme Court to allow them to appeal the conviction.
Spokeswoman for rights organisation Women and Men Against Child Abuse, Germaine Vogel, said they were confident the strength of the State’s case would not allow Hewitt’s conviction to be overturned and hoped another court would impose a harsher sentence, if the appeal took place.
“We believe the outcome of this case is extremely important to this country because it’s going to set the precedent for future cases,” Vogel said .
Sheehan said while she was glad the leave to appeal the conviction had been dismissed, she was concer ned about Hewitt’s extended bail. “What sort of message does this send to rapists in our country? That you can be convicted but if you appeal you can go home?”
Sheehan said at the very least, regardless of whether he was in a prison cell or at home, Hewitt would spend the next several months, or even years, fighting for his life in court.
“I’ve found my place of peace,” she said.
Tolken, who did not attend proceedings, said she was disappointed Hewitt had been allowed to appeal the sentence and that bail had been extended.
“He was found guilty of two counts of rape and one of sexual assault and he is not in jail. Why not?” she asked.