Child porn man fails in appeal of sentence

THE LENASIA man who took 45 pornographic pictures of a 12-year-old child in exchange for clothes and food has failed three times to convince the courts to overturn his sentence.

A lower court earlier sentenced Aardiel Essop to 10 years’ imprisonment after he was convicted on 45 charges of contravening the Films and Publications Act, as well as kidnapping.

Unhappy with the fact that the magistrate compared his case to another in which a man was sentenced to 10 years for 144 pornographic transgressions, Essop appealed to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.

He felt that the 45 pictures he took paled in comparison to the 144 in the case that he was compared to. However, Judge Judy Kollapen also turned down his appeal.

Still aggrieved by his 10-year sentence, Essop turned to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where two judges again confirmed that he deserved nothing less than 10 years in jail for his “despicable acts” committed against a “mere child”.

“The appellant exploited her obviously distressed background for his personal gratification,” they said.

The judges commented that kidnapping alone was a serious offence, which if punished separately, could easily attract a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

Essop earlier pleaded guilty to taking pictures of the child. When he was arrested, the police found the pictures on his camera and Essop had no means of explaining them away.

Essop, also a father, said that in 2014 he visited the Lenasia shopping mall. En route to his residence as he drove in the direction of Johannesburg south, he saw the complainant at an intersection.

He stopped at the traffic light and the complainant knocked on his car window. She asked for a lift to the nearby informal settlement. He allowed her to get into his car.

According to him, she signalled to him her preparedness to do him a favour in exchange for the lift. Essop said he understood her to be offering him masturbation or oral sex.

He told her that he would take her to his home where he would give her food and she could take a bath. She agreed. On arrival at his home, she was offered a shower and clean clothing.

She accepted the offer, and after a shower the appellant gave her clothing belonging to his daughter to put on. She was also given food to eat.

He said the complainant offered to do him a favour in exchange for what he had done for her.

Essop said he was not interested in having sexual contact with her; instead, he asked to take some pictures of her.

While taking the pictures, he asked her to remove some of her clothing and then took photographs of parts of her body that were exposed.

While driving her home, they were stopped by police and the girl told the police that Essop had taken pictures of her. The police found the camera he had used and pictures on his cellphone.