Judge finds parole board negligent over attack by murderer

THE terrifying sight of a knifewielding murderer threatening to rape and kill her lingers in Sherelle Naidu’s mind.

But almost seven years after she was attacked by paroled Marius Michaels in her Somerset West home, the teacher is a step nearer closure.

Michaels did not only invade Naidu’s privacy but threatened her with “a knife, bit her, threatened to murder and rape her”. She suffered “renewed anxiety” and “emotional distress” when she had to testify against him in court and was booked off work for five days.

But she has won her case against the correctional services minister and turned the spotlight on the efficiency of parole boards.

Naidu, 51, wants more than R1.3-million for her suffering. She told the court she incurred R120 000 in medical expenses and estimates future costs to be R800 000. Michaels is serving a 15-year sentence for the attack.

Last month, the High Court in Cape Town found the parole board acted negligently when it approved Michaels’ release from Brandvlei Prison in Worcester.

The 49-year-old has a catalogue of convictions dating back to 1980 and ranging from theft and assault to murder.

Naidu argued that the board failed to take into account Michaels’ previous convictions and violation of parole conditions.

“With the exercise of reasonable care, it would have been ascertained that there was a reasonable risk that, if released, he would commit further crimes and pose a risk to society,” she said.

Court documents read: “As a result of the negligent acts . . . [Naidu] continues to suffer severe emotional stress, shock and trauma. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder [and] requires ongoing psychological treatment.”

The parole board had considered that Michaels would stay with his grandmother and had “learnt from his previous mistakes and . . . will not make the same mistakes again”.

Geraldine Lewis, a Brandvlei social worker who recommended his release, testified that Michaels had “committed his offences while intoxicated”. In her opinion, Michaels did not require more social work intervention, which was why she recommended his release.

Judge Yasmin Meer dismissed Lewis’s report, saying it showed no proof that Michaels was reformed. “Given the absence of evidence that Michaels had been rehabilitated, the board ought in the circumstances to have taken reasonable steps to guard against the foreseeable harm of Michaels’ release on parole, by refusing his application,” she said. “Failure to do so was . . . negligence.”

Naidu’s damages are yet to be determined.

She was not willing to comment about the case this week but her lawyer, Gideon van Zyl, said she was yet to overcome the trauma.

Van Zyl said he hoped the minister would not appeal.

The outcome did not surprise James Selfe, the DA’s spokesman on correctional services. “The parole boards sometimes get things horribly wrong and seem to have done so in this case.

“But there is a system of review and guidelines that is supposed to be followed,” he said.

The Department of Correctional Services said it would not appeal against Meer’s judgment.