Spontaneous applause as Ninow appeal bid fails

SPONTANEOUS applause broke out in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, yesterday after the court turned down convicted child rapist Nicholas Ninow’s bid to appeal against his conviction and life sentence.

The family of his 8-year-old victim were not in court, but interested members of the public and members of the of the #NotInMyName organisation hailed the ruling.

#NotInMyName said the appeal was a futile exercise from the start and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Asked whether Ninow would now petition the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, his lawyer, Herman Alberts, instructed by Legal Aid, said he would have to take instructions from his client before making a decision regarding the next step.

In turning down the leave to appeal, Judge Papi Masopa said: “There are no reasonable prospects of success in the applicant’s case.

“Most of the aspects he dealt with, I thoroughly dealt with during my judgment... I see no other court coming to a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at.”

Ninow, who was not at court yesterday, is serving his life term at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre.

He was convicted on September 16 last year for the rape of the child, as well for being in the possession of drugs and defeating the ends of justice by trying to get rid of some of the evidence at the scene.

While Ninow did plead guilty to the rape during his trial, his gripe with his conviction was that the judge found that the rape had been premeditated.

The judge found that he sat at a table at Dros restaurant that day that was close to the children’s play area, as he wanted to scout for a victim.

Regarding his sentence, Alberts argued that there were mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence.

He said Ninow’s unhappy past and the fact that the court found him to be a broken man should have served as mitigation, as well as his use of drugs and alcohol.

Alberts further argued that the court lent too much weight to public opinion at the time.

The judge pointed out that Ninow never gave any reason for sitting within metres of the children’s play area. The child also testified that she was already in the bathroom when Ninow arrived there.

“As such, it can be inferred that the applicant saw the complainant moving from the play area to the bathroom and then followed her,” the judge said.

Regarding the sentence, he said he did fully consider Ninow’s personal circumstances and the fact that he had been introduced to drugs from an early age by his mother.

He also said Ninow gave no reason why he used the ladies’ toilets that day.

Furthermore, he had put up a fight and refused to open the door when the child’s mother and others tried to open it. The judge concluded that for all these reasons, a life sentence was not unreasonable and it was the punishment prescribed by the law under the circumstances.