Guilty of acid attack
But attempted murder charge does not stick
JAN Pieterse might not spend another day behind bars despite being convicted of dousing his lover in acid.
Yesterday, he was convicted of the lesser crime of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, rather than attempted murder, which the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had tried to have him convicted of.
His erstwhile partner, Ines Antonio, has undergone six operations since November – and endured a life of unimaginable pain, unable to sleep lying down, unable to shower, dress or even eat properly because she can’t chew her food anymore. Most nights the pain keeps her awake.
Yesterday, all she could do was express her disappointment. “He threatened me. Stalked me for months. He told me he was going to do it. Domestic violence is not taken seriously in this country.
I have to live for the rest of my life with my disfigurement and he might get off with a light sentence,” she said.
Antonio is terrified that Pieterse, 45, might not spend a day in jail for his sentence, despite having been remanded in custody ever since he attacked her.
Phindi Louw, the NPA’s regional spokeswoman, echoed Antonio’s sentiments at an impromptu media briefing after Pieterse’s conviction.
“We are very disappointed. Domestic violence is widespread. We believe the court had a duty to protect women and it should have gone the extra mile in this case to set a precedent and to develop the law for victims,” she said.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, she said, would study the judgment to decide whether to take it on appeal for a conviction on the more serious charge.
Prosecutor Tshepo Ka Mzizi told The Star he was disappointed too. He said he would be urging the magistrate to jail Pieterse.
During recess, he appealed to Antonio to try to find it in her heart to forgive the accused, so she could move on with her life. Antonio said she could only move on when she knew that Pieterse would be behind bars for a long time.
In passing judgment, magistrate Albertus Roux took exception to Antonio’s evidence, saying she had also sent Pieterse abusive text messages after the attack.
He said Antonio’s new partner had also taken part in the abusive messages and threats. Roux said the court believed Antonio had arranged to meet Pieterse on the night of the attack.
In his testimony, Pieterse claimed he had acted in self-defence after Antonio had slapped him. Roux said this was an unreasonable act of ‘self-defence’ as Antonio was smaller than him and a woman.
“Although the fact that there was an argument seems plausible, as this was a stormy relationship, the argument, which was over visiting rights of their daughter, was trivial, so it was uncalled for to throw acid at her,” he said.
So too, if this had been a “terrible accident”, as Pieterse described the incident when testifying, why did he not show concern and compassion after the event and enquire about her injuries, he added.
Roux said it was highly unlikely that Pieterse had grabbed a tin from his boot not knowing what was in it. “This required a lot of planning,” he said, adding that throwing a tin with its lid on was unlikely to have caused as much damage as the acid did.
Pieterse had a history of abuse against Antonio, evident from the protection order she had against him, the magistrate said.
In his text messages to her after the attack, Pieterse said she had deserved what had happened to her, and that now that she was scarred, she would no longer be attractive to other men.
“The court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he had foreseen the injuries,” Roux said.
Dismissing the attempted murder charge, the magistrate said the State had failed to prove that Pieterse had intent to kill Antonio. He dismissed the attempted murder charge for the injuries to their child, saying the child could have sustained minor acid burns through contact with her mother.
Pieterse is due to be sentenced on December 7.
See Page 13
He may not have to spend another day in jail