THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4Sunday 6 July 2003[7] It is necessary to attempt to get as full a picture as possible of what hadoccurred on the Sunday on which Sasha Leigh had disappeared. In doing so, theevidence of neighbours and the appellant’s own evidence concerning hismovements during that day will be dealt with.[8] Sasha Leigh had spent the week preceding Sunday 6 July 2003, whichwas part of her school holidays, at her grandparents’ home. It appears that hermother regularly allowed her to spend time with them. Thus, she was not astranger in the neighbourhood. It is common cause that Sasha Leigh often playedin the neighbourhood and had befriended, amongst others, the appellant’s twoyear-old niece Ashiema, who at one stage lived at her grandmother’s home, nextdoor.[9] On that Sunday morning, upon her return from Church with hergrandmother, Sasha Leigh played in and around the house. Her grandmotherprepared lunch whilst her grandfather watched television. They saw herintermittently. She had repeatedly remonstrated with her grandmother becauseshe was unhappy that the latter was preparing steak, vegetables and roastpotatoes for lunch. She extracted an undertaking from her grandmother that herpreferred meal of roast chicken would be on the menu for supper that night.Sasha Leigh and her grandparents were all conscious of time as they were allscheduled to attend a party at 15h00.[10] After lunch, in anticipation of attending the party, Sasha Leigh dressedherself in the tracksuit in which her body was later discovered. According to hergrandmother the first time she discovered that Sasha Leigh was missing wasafter 14h00. That time largely accords with what neighbours testified was thetime they saw Sasha Leigh enter the premises next door.
5[11] Sasha Leigh’s grandmother immediately went searching for hergranddaughter in the neighbourhood. Her first port of call was the house nextdoor, house no 45. The windows and the front door were closed. It appears thatno-one was home. She then went to house no 43 and was told that Sasha Leighwas not there. She looked at the house directly across the street, where MrsAntoinette Jacobs and her three daughters were having tea on the front porch.An enquiry directed at them elicited the answer that Sasha Leigh had been seena short while earlier at the appellant’s home and that she had entered thebackyard through a side gate.[12] Sasha Leigh’s grandmother went back to house no 45 and this timeapproached the side-gate leading to the back yard. The gate was made of steeland one could not see through it. She called out her granddaughter’s name andthe appellant came to the gate. He told her that Sasha Leigh was not there.[13] When Sasha Leigh’s grandmother testified it was never put to her that theappellant had told her that Sasha Leigh had been there earlier. In his evidencein-chief the appellant did not testify that he had done so. It was only later, duringcross-examination that he said he had told her that Sasha Leigh had been thereearlier. That part of his evidence was in response to the prosecutor putting to theappellant that it could reasonably be expected of him to have told Sasha Leigh’sgrandmother about her earlier presence in the yard. It was clearly an afterthoughtand was brought about by pressure from the cross-examiner.[14] A continued frantic search by Sasha Leigh’s grandparents, in theimmediate neighbourhood and beyond, during the remainder of that Sunday,proved fruitless.[15] Ms Martina Jacobs, who, after lunch on that Sunday, had been drinkingtea on the porch with her mother and two siblings saw the appellant and Sasha
Page 1 and 2: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUT
Page 3: 3appellant’s house, after she had
Page 7 and 8: 7in the mistaken belief that she wa
Page 9 and 10: 9bags of the kind used by builders.
Page 11 and 12: 11her and the appellant and she agr
Page 13 and 14: 13[41] Dr Lourens, in dealing with
Page 15 and 16: 15[48] A few days into the trial th
Page 17 and 18: 17[57] The court below found Inspec
Page 19 and 20: 19[63] In the oft cited case of R v
Page 21 and 22: 21appreciated it is nevertheless ne

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?