REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK Case No: CC 48/2009 THE STATE versus QUINTON PIETERS Neutral citation: S v Pieters (CC 48/2009) [2015]NAHCMD 38 (3 March 2015) SHIVUTE, J Heard: 19 – 22 November 2011; 27 – 30 November 2011; 26 June 2012 – 06 July 2012; 2 August 2012; 5 December 2012; 10 April 2013; 1 July 2013; 31 October 2013; 22 – 25 April 2014; 12 November 2014. Delivered: 3 March 2015 Fly note: Evidence – Single witness – Young children – Cautionary rules – Court may convict on evidence of a single witness if clear and satisfactory in material respects – Cautionary rules – Not applied in formalistic way – Court may convict on evidence of young children – if satisfied that the child is able to comprehend the truth – possess intelligence – Able to remember and recollect the event – Evidence to be assessed in its totality. Criminal Procedure: Dock identification – Witness identifying the accused in Court – No identification parade held – Accused refusing to
take part in identification parade – Although there are dangers on dock identification – Dock identification forms part of the evidential material to be tested – Evidence dock identification – Admissible depending on the circumstances of each case – Court to decide what weight to be attached. Summary: Evidence – The accused was charged with multiple counts committed against young children and one adult person – Most witnesses are youthful and single witnesses – The Court has warned itself to the dangers of convicting on evidence of single witnesses and young children – The Court may convict on the evidence of a single witness if it is clear and satisfactory in all material respects – The Court may also convict on the evidence of young children if it is satisfied that the young child comprehends the truthfulness of events, possesses sufficient intelligence, able to recollect and remember what happened – And that the witness is a reliable witness. Summary: Criminal Procedure – Dock identification – Evidence of dock identification is part of the evidential matter to be tested – Although there is a danger to convict on evidence of dock identification it cannot be ignored – The Court should decide what weight to be attached – Dock identification evidence is admissible depending on the circumstances of each case – In this case witnesses gave a proper description of the accused – Accused refused to take part in the identification parade – for no reasonable grounds – Only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the accused was afraid of possible identification. VERDICT
2nd Theft 3rd Count: Rape in contravention of s 2 (1) (a) read with ss 1, 2 (2), 2 (3), 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Act 8 of 2000. 4th Count: Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. 5th Count: Rape in contravention of s 2 (1) (a) read with ss 1, 2 (2), 2 (3), 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the Combating of Rape Act 8 of 2000. Alternative to 5th Count: Committing or attempting to commit a sexual act with a child under the age of 16 in contravention of s 14 (a) of Act 21 of 1980 as amended by Act 7 of 2000. 6th Rape in contravention of s 2 (1) (a) read with ss 1, 2 (2), 2 (3), 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Act 8 of 2000. Alternative to 6th Count: Committing or attempting to commit a sexual act with a child under the age of 16 in contravention of s 14 (a) of Act 21 of 1980 as amended by Act 7 of 2000. 7th Count: Rape in contravention of s 2 (1) (a) read with ss 1, 2 (2), 2 (3), 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Act 8 of 2000. Alternative to 7th Count: Committing or attempting to commit a sexual act with a child under the age of 16 in contravention of s 14 (a) of Act 21 of 1980 as amended by Act 8 of 2000. [2] The particulars of the alleged offences are as follows: 1st Count: Attempted Rape. Upon or about 20 August 2004 at or near Koppieslaagte Township in the district of Keetmanshoop the accused did wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally attempt to have sexual intercourse with F H without her consent. Alternatively he unlawfully, wrongfully committed or attempted to commit a sexual act with a child under the age of 16, to wit F H, an 11 year old. 2nd Count Theft: On the same date at the same place as mentioned above the accused did wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally take N$10 (Ten Namibia Dollars)