Two police officers convicted of raping a woman will spend 15 years in prison each after the Northern Cape High Court overturned their seven-year sentences.
The court found that the magistrate had misdirected himself when sentencing the men. He treated the sexual offences as one prolonged act of rape. The evidence established distinct acts.
The appeal court also condemned the men’s conduct as police officers. They were expected to protect the public, not exploit a position of trust.
“Particularly abhorrent is that both perpetrators were serving police officers. Members of the public are entitled to place trust in police officials. Instead of protecting the complainant, the appellants exploited a relationship of familiarity and trust for their own sexual gratification,” the court said.
In its judgment delivered on, the court dismissed the appeals against their convictions. It replaced the seven-year sentences with 15 years’ imprisonment for each man.
The case arose from an incident in Upington on 3 April 2017. The woman had previously been in relationships with both men. Those relationships had ended before the incident.
She contacted the first appellant, Simphiwe Ephraim Ncube, asking for a lift into town. She had lost her purse and needed to report the loss of her bank card.
The second appellant, Alvin Andile Ntshweza, was driving when they returned to Paballelo township.
The complainant testified that Ncube took her to his home and forced her to have sex with him despite her protests. She said Ntshweza later arrived and also raped her.
Both men denied the allegations. They claimed the sexual activity was consensual.
The regional court rejected their versions and convicted them. The High Court upheld those convictions. It found that the State had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal court stressed that a previous relationship does not amount to continuing consent. Consent to one sexual act does not mean consent to another.
The magistrate sentenced each man to seven years in prison. He treated the events as a single, prolonged act of rape.
The High Court found that this approach failed to account for the separate acts described in the evidence. It also criticised the magistrate’s treatment of evidence about oral sexual acts and the sucking of the complainant’s breasts.
The judgment described the magistrate’s characterisation of the events as a “prolonged act of rape”, despite evidence of distinct acts, as “rather regrettable”.
The court found that the magistrate had applied the wrong minimum-sentence provision.
It said the evidence established multiple acts of rape. It also found that the offences fell within the provisions dealing with rape committed by more than one person
