‘Bloody hand’ principle likely to deny killer family’s riches

THE 17-year-old boy found guilty of a family murder that has rocked the sleepy Northern Cape town of Griquatown is unlikely to see a cent of the family’s R23-million estate.

On Thursday, the High Court in Kimberley found the boy guilty of killing Deon, 44, and Christel, 43, Steenkamp and their 14-year-old daughter, Marthella, in 2012 on their farm Naauwhoek, near Griquatown.

The killer’s motive, the court found, was to cover up his rape of Marthella.

Included in the items he was set to inherit were the guns the teenager used to murder the family in cold blood.

The teenager, who was 15 at the time of the murder, cannot be identified because he is a minor. He was also found guilty of rape and defeating the ends of justice.

He will be sentenced in May and his legal team has yet to decide whether to appeal.

The teenager stood to benefit from a joint will that contains the details of two property-owning family trusts — one of which owned Naauwhoek, the scene of the crime.

Christel’s jewellery, intended to go to Marthella, will now go to her mother, Martha Massyn. In terms of the will, Marthella also stood to benefit from the other family trust. Should she die before inheriting, the will states, her share would go to the 17-year-old boy.

According to the judgment, the boy told a psychologist a day after the killings that he knew about the trust and asked how the “inheritance will now devolve”.

Without a successful appeal against his conviction, he is unlikely to benefit because of the bloedige hand (bloody hand) legal principle, which prevents a person inheriting as a beneficiary of their crimes.

Several experts confirmed the principle was highly likely to prevent the boy getting a cent.

“The law . . . states very clearly that [a person convicted of a crime] cannot derive any benefit from the deceased estate,” said Pretoria attorney Llewellyn Curlewis.

Johannesburg attorney Roy Bregman said the principle would apply, but as far as he was aware it had never been applied to children.

During the boy’s bail application following the judgment, his lawyer, Riaan Bode, told the court that his client knew he could not directly or indirectly benefit from the estate.