Abyss

As a specialised criminal attorney, nobody appreciates more the incredible job performed by not only the police, but also by other members of our criminal justice system. Theirs, in the main, is a thankless task performed by, primarily, professional people under very trying circumstances.

The citizens of South Africa are deeply indebted to them — no question.

There are, however, instances where their conduct can destroy people’s lives due to negligence, indifference and in certain cases pure bloody-mindedness.

Just as I have written articles to highlight the plight of the police, in this instance I feel compelled to deal with certain of their victims.

The case began in 1999 when five men were arrested by one of Gauteng’s unit’s dealing with murder and robbery. The charge was robbery — the men had purportedly broken into one of South Africa’s major retail stores.

The men comprised two young English South Africans, two young Afrikaners and one young black male. These were the parties who were arrested and charged.

Two other young Afrikaans men were released and sued the police successfully for the considerable infringements of their rights.

From 1999 until the conclusion of their trial in 2007, these accused, who were acquitted, had to endure the following:

1. Allegedly being beaten and tortured by members of this unit (who have drawn a huge amount of publicity on this issue relating to other victims).

2. Refused access to legal representation.

3. Members of their families being threatened unless they gave evidence against them.

4. Repeated changes in the prosecutor, which together with the ineptitude of the investigating officer resulted in a trial that lasted more than eight years.

5. A total absence of forensic evidence as a result of police and witnesses tramping all over the crime scene. In a case of armed robbery, not one piece of physical evidence was led by the state.

6. Loss of their jobs, break-ups in their relationships, distancing of their families and friends, which occasioned financial ruin and emotional trauma that had to be seen to be believed.

The above is by no means exhaustive of the problems experienced in the matter.

When the state closed its case, the magistrate correctly upheld applications in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedures Act. There wasn’t even the semblance of a case to answer.

Eight approaching nine gruelling years in which these men lost everything had come to an end. Now to begin picking up the pieces of their shattered lives.

As most parties who have been through matters such as these are aware, at the end of a case, unless the parties have been convicted, they are entitled to the return of those items that have been taken and used as evidence.

These men, having endured the above, now have to deal with the following:

1. During the case the investigating officer approached the five defence attorneys and requested the clients’ consent to pay the cash element to the complainant. The clients vehemently refused permission as this evidence did not belong to the complainant.

2. Subsequently we learned that the investigating officer had already paid it across before approaching the accused for their consent. He tried to fix this up post facto but was refused permission. This is irrelevant to the accused, but falls to be dealt with between the police and the complainant.

3. This conduct was, however, consistent with earlier conduct of the police. Besides the crime scene and the evidence dealt with above, we were to learn during the course of the trial that certain other cash was being kept, not in the SAP13, where police evidence is kept, but in a safety-deposit box in the name of a former employee and a staff member of the complainant. This must be a new procedure that was missed in one of the Government Gazettes.

Regardless, when the police were approached for the return of the money taken into evidence, they were advised that the police needed to verify that this was in order.

They were referred to a state attorney in Pretoria who advised that this should be done immediately. This was not considered sufficient because the matter should have been dealt with by a Johannesburg state attorney.

In discussions with the state attorney, they were advised that he had motivated the return of the money, or evidence, to his client, the police.

All good?

When the police representative was advised of the same she advised that she was still waiting for the state attorney’s fax. She promised to address a letter.

They advised the police representative that these people were destitute and had endured nine years of horrific incompetence. Could she rather make a call and get the fax resent or do whatever it takes to get this finalised?

In the face of all that had gone before, she demanded to know who were they to dictate procedure to her — ignoring the fact that had the police followed procedure, the clients would have been at least seven years better off.

The matter has been referred to our outstanding provincial commissioner who is actively involved in community affairs and understands policing from the bottom up.

This is a lesson in humility. How officials “safeguarded” by procedure can allow matters to run and run “in the interests of justice”, when justice demands that their actions be made accountable.

How easy it is to destroy the lives of people without compassion or regard.

This, as I pointed out earlier, is just one case; every day thousands of South Africans owe their very lives to our gallant men and women in blue.

The fewer of these aberrations the better.