Man jailed for raping teen walks free after court sets aside 20-year sentence over flawed trial

High Court overturns KZN man’s rape convictions after finding serious trial errors.

A KwaZulu-Natal man who was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for raping a teenage girl has been acquitted after the High Court found serious flaws in the State’s case, including inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and problems with the medical testimony.

Sibonginhlanhla Kiza Radebe had been convicted on two counts of rape in the Ixopo Regional Court and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment on the second. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

However, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg overturned both convictions, ruling that the State had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Radebe was responsible for the alleged offences.

The complainant was 13 years old when the first alleged rape occurred in October 2014 and 14 when the second incident allegedly happened in June 2015.

She told the regional court that Radebe, who was known to her family as their neighbour, raped her after she went to his home to borrow something while her grandmother was away.

She further alleged that he threatened to kill her if she told anyone what had happened.

Regarding the second incident, she testified that Radebe entered her grandmother’s home while she was watching television with her younger siblings and raped her in another room.

However, the High Court found that important details emerged only during cross-examination, after the defence confronted her with the statement she had made to the police.

In that statement, the complainant had alleged that Radebe covered her mouth with brown Sellotape and threatened her with a knife and a firearm.

She acknowledged that these details were contained in her statement but said she had forgotten to mention them during her testimony.

Judge Mossop questioned how the complainant could have forgotten such significant and distressing details.

The judge found that her performance under cross-examination raised concerns about her reliability and the extent to which her evidence could be trusted.

The court also identified problems with the medical evidence presented during the trial.

District surgeon Dr Bana examined the complainant on November 5, 2015, and recorded that she had fresh tears to her hymen, as well as a yellowish discharge.

During the trial, the prosecutor asked the doctor whether the findings were consistent with the complainant having been raped in October.

However, Judge Mossop pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to clarify that the first alleged rape had taken place in October 2014, not October 2015.

The second alleged rape had occurred in June 2015.

The judge said the doctor had not been asked whether the injuries described as fresh could have resulted from an incident five months before his examination.

The court found that the medical findings appeared to point to penetration much closer to the date of the examination.

However, there was no allegation that Radebe had raped the complainant in October 2015.

The judgment noted that while the medical evidence established that the complainant had been penetrated, it did not establish that Radebe was responsible.

The High Court also found that the regional court had wrongly relied on the complainant’s mother's testimony.

The mother had repeated details of the alleged rapes that her daughter had told her.

However, the judgment noted that the complainant had first disclosed the incidents to a friend, identified as Ms N, who subsequently informed her mother.

Judge Mossop found that the mother's repetition of her daughter's allegations amounted to a previous consistent statement and was inadmissible.

The regional magistrate had relied on the mother's testimony as supporting the complainant's credibility, suggesting that the girl had not fabricated her allegations.

The High Court said this was an incorrect approach, explaining that repeating an allegation did not establish that it was true.

The judgment also revealed that Radebe's attempts to challenge his conviction had encountered problems.

After his conviction, he applied for leave to appeal the sentence imposed on the first count in February 2017, but the regional magistrate dismissed the application.

He subsequently submitted a petition to appeal his conviction on the first count.

The High Court discovered that the registrar's office had received the petition on July 30, 2018, but there was no record showing that it had been allocated to judges for consideration or that any decision had been made.

Judge Mossop described the discovery as shocking, saying there was a possibility that Radebe might not have spent the past eight years incarcerated had the petition received proper attention.

The court subsequently granted the petition, allowing it to consider his appeal against the first conviction as well as the second.

In its assessment of the trial, the High Court strongly criticised the prosecution's preparation and presentation of the case, as well as the regional magistrate's handling of the evidence.

Judge Mossop said the State had failed in its duty to present cases involving sexual offences professionally and skilfully to ensure that those guilty were convicted and punished.

The court concluded that Radebe's guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt on either count.

It ordered that both convictions and sentences be set aside and replaced with verdicts of not guilty.

The registrar was also instructed to consider the conduct of staff members who had handled Radebe's appeal petition and whether disciplinary or other action should be taken.