A stepfather who hit his 14-year-old stepdaughter using a belt with a buckle failed in his bid to claim damages from the police for what he termed his unlawful arrest and incarceration over a weekend in a police cell.
The man, who cannot be identified to safeguard the identity of the teenager, lost his initial bid against the SA Police Service (SAPS) for damages, as the court found the police did their job and were entitled to arrest and detain him.
In a second bid to obtain damages, he appealed the matter before the High Court in Johannesburg, which also turned down his appeal.
While he was initially charged with assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm, the man maintained that he merely “reprimanded” the girl.
He was arrested by officers from the Family Violence and Child Protection Services in Vereeniging.
Angry at his stepdaughter for not sleeping at home, the man hit her with a belt, using the buckle. The victim sustained injuries on her face, upper hands and legs.
The victim’s mother could not immediately take her to the doctor as she did not have money.
A Sergeant Mwale testified that he was on standby when he received the docket. He met the complainant and her mother at a park, where he interviewed them. He then took the victim to the Levai Mbatha Clinic to have her injuries attended to.
Mwale said the child had sustained severe injuries and she was in pain.
The mother told the officer they had nowhere to go and they were too afraid to go home. Based on this and the child’s injuries, the officer said he decided to arrest the man.
This, he said, was so the man could appear before court to take responsibility for his actions, and to give the complainant and her mother the opportunity to occupy the house safely.
The officer testified that when they tried to arrest the man, he tried to flee.
The officer however, managed to catch him and the man remained in jail for the weekend. He was released on a Monday after the court needed time to go through his file.
The case was never re-enrolled.
The appellant’s (the stepfather’s) version is that he was never told why he was being arrested and his rights were never read to him. He stated that he was only given a piece of paper in the cells and did not understand what he was reading.
After being arrested, he gave a statement stating he was only trying to discipline his stepdaughter. It was not his intention to hurt her.
During cross-examination, he was extensively asked about the assault on the complainant. He continuously referred to it as reprimanding the complainant, but did not deny that he assaulted her.
Later, when he was asked whether the police were correct to arrest him for committing an offence of assaulting a minor, he agreed, but he disagreed with the procedure and not having his side of the story heard by the police at the time.
The court said his defence of “merely reprimanding” the child could not hold. It referred to the case of Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, where the Constitutional Court found that parental chastisement, no matter how moderate, did not pass the limitation analysis.
“In other words, parental chastisement infringes a child’s right,” Acting Judge WJ du Plessis said.
The court also referred to threats made by the man against the complainant and her mother, including various threats that he would kill himself and the mother.
Judge Du Plessis said domestic violence was a serious crime, making such arrests rational.
“Domestic violence, especially where threats of killing were made, is a serious crime. Leaving it for the court to decide is rational.
“The fact that it was not enrolled could not have been foreseen. Accordingly, I find that the magistrate was correct in finding that the arrest and detention was lawful,” Judge Du Plessis concluded.
Pretoria News