- S V Seedat 2015 (2) SACR 612 (GP)
The accused, Mr Seedat, was 63 years of age at the time of his conviction and sentence, while the complainant was a 57-year-old woman.
What happened was that the accused, a businessman, went to the complainant’s home (apparently in the vicinity of the town of Schweizer-Reneke in the North West Province), to deliver a bed lamp. The accused offered to demonstrate to the complainant that the lamp was in working condition. The complainant agreed to this offer and invited the accused to her bedroom where he plugged in the lamp and switched it on.
According to the complainant, she was satisfied that the lamp was working, and as she was about to move out of the bedroom, she was grabbed by the accused who threw her against the dressing table (Afrikaans: “spieëlkas”), pulled off her trousers and panty, picked her up and threw her onto her back. The accused then penetrated her from behind (had anal intercourse with her) and then he turned her around and had frontal vaginal sexual intercourse with her. After finishing, the accused left without asking her about the money she owed him for the bed lamp (and, to think all this was done by a man in his sixties).
Subsequent to this incident, the accused was convicted by the magistrates’ court (the “trial court”) on one charge of rape in contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007.
Of importance (and interest) to readers of this column is the fact that, in respect of sentence, the trial court, inter alia, took into account the fact that the complainant testified that she did not want the accused to be sent to a correctional centre, but pleaded instead that he buy her a Toyota motor vehicle. She also wanted monetary compensation payable as follows, namely a first payment of R5000, followed by R2500 per month for eight years. The total sum would be R245 000. The accused was willing to make such payment.
However, the trial court sentenced the accused to seven years’ incarceration.
On appeal by the accused before the High Court in Pretoria (“the High Court”) against both his conviction and sentence, the High Court remarked, inter alia, that the accused committed two separate acts of rape and that he should have been convicted of repeat rape in terms of section 51(1), read together with para (a)(i) under the offence “rape” of Part I of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, which provides for minimum sentences. Apparently no mention was made in the charge-sheet about such a possibility.