Disapointed in justice

Murder accused Mr Hercules van Staden was acquitted of charges on July 25 at the Germiston Magistrate’s Court.

Mr van Staden had been charged after the death of Greenstone resident, father of two and husband, Mr Danjay Singh in 2012 at the Stones nightclub in Edenvale.

On Monday the court heard the closing arguments.

Mrs Jayshree Singh, widow of the deceased, said that after being at the courts every month, she felt very upset and disappointed with the outcome of the case.

The couple had been married for 17 years at the time of Mr Singh’s death.

“It’s a frustrating process and I just feel that there are double standards in the justice system. Here you have Oscar Pistorius – he was charged in 2013, he went to to trial, has been re-tried and now they are going to appeal. Our case dates back to 2012,” said Mrs Singh.

She said that she feels that people of social status are treated differently.

“It’s not going to change my life in the fact that my husband is gone and he is never coming back,” said Mrs Singh.

She said it will be hard for her children who are young now, but when they grow up will want answers.

“We are very disappointed with the acquittal. To my family, the court’s decision does not mean that Mr van Staden is an innocent man,” said Mr Vinesh Singh, the deceased’s uncle.

He said that it left the family with more questions than answers.

“He showed no remorse. After four years, the outcome has been a let-down,” said Mrs Singh.

Mrs Singh said that she feels frustrated that the video that showed the incident at the club was declared inadmissible evidence.

“When the video played in real time, you could see what happened,” she said.

“Why were we looking at the video for three years just to be told now that it is inadmissible. The court declared the video inadmissible because the section of the video in question to the court case was too blurry,” said the widow.

She said that perhaps if the state had made use of a video expert the outcome would have been different. “My hat does go off to the prosecutor, though,” said Mrs Singh.

The magistrate said that there were inconsistencies in the witness testimonies.

Mrs Singh believes it was because of a lack of clarification and the way in which scenarios were explained by different witnesses with different understandings.

“I understand the magistrate’s point of view: what she is hearing is what she has to go on.”

Mr Vinesh Singh said that the family will be exploring all avenues to understand what recourse the family can legally explore.

He said that the family will seek justice for his nephew.

“To say we’ve got an innocent man is an unfair statement because he was implicated by three witnesses, including his very own manager, and tangible video evidence,” he said.

He said that he understands that the court can only work with the evidence it is provided with.

“We are not asking for public opinion or emotion to influence the application of the law. All we seek is justice,” said Mr Vinesh Singh.