Convicted murderer’s state of mind during confession now in dispute

THERE was clearly disagreement about the state of mind of a man convicted of murder, at the time he confessed to the crime.

Two Pietermaritzburg High Court judges ruled yesterday that the matter be referred for oral evidence before them.

Truck repair company owner Rajive Sewnarain brought an application for a review and the setting aside of his conviction and sentence, imposed on December 22, 2010.

At his trial Sewnarain, of Montclair, pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife, Shanaaz Sewnarain.

He said he had arranged for her to be killed as their relationship was volatile. He had arranged that he, too, be shot to lend weight to his hijack claim.

When the killing occurred he told the police that he and his wife had been the victims of a hijacking and that he had blacked out after being shot.

On appeal, it was submitted that before his guilty plea, he was assaulted by the police. A firearm was pointed at his chest and he was threatened that if he did not admit to the murder, he would be shot.

He also saw “other persons” being severely assaulted by the police.

The investigating officer also allegedly told him that if he confessed, he would stand a better chance of getting a more lenient sentence.

It was also alleged that Sewnarain was not allowed to get his own attorney and one was arranged for him. Also, he said, when he pleaded guilty he was under medication, tired, drowsy and not fit to stand trial.

In a reserved judgment handed down yesterday, judges Kevin Swain and Jacqui Henriques referred the matter for the hearing of oral evidence on whether Sewnarain was in his sound and sober senses when he confessed to the murder of his wife, and whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside.

They directed the registrar of the court to give the matter preference when setting it down.

What lay at the heart of Sewnarain’s case, said the judges, was the evidence of Professor Lourens Schlebusch, Dr Prema Laban and Dr Brenda Bosch.

Laban was of the view that the merits of Sewnarian’s guilty plea could be challenged on psychiatric grounds, a view Schlebusch supported.

According to the latter, Sewnarain’s insights and judgement were impaired.

On the basis of these reports, it was submitted that Sewnarain was not fit to stand trial on account of mental incapacity, said the judges.

On the other hand, the magistrate who took the confession, and another who took the plea, as well as Sewnarain’s attorney at the time, had said he was in his sound and sober senses.

The judges felt there was a “real, genuine and bona fide dispute” of the facts relating to Sewnarain’s state of mind when he confessed.