Unsympathetic Desai means a successful appeal for Van Breda unlikely

Henri Van Breda sits in the dock of the Western Cape High Court to hear his sentence for killing his parents and brother and maiming his sister with an axe in their luxury home in 2015, in Cape Town on June 7, 2018.Picture: AFP PHOTO / RODGER BOSCH

Henri Van Breda sits in the dock of the Western Cape High Court to hear his sentence for killing his parents and brother and maiming his sister with an axe in their luxury home in 2015, in Cape Town on June 7, 2018.Picture: AFP PHOTO / RODGER BOSCH

Judge Desai, who will pass judgment on the application for leave to appeal on Monday, seems unconvinced by the arguments of Van Breda’s defence.

Henri van Breda, the 23-year-old who was convicted of murdering his parents and brother and attempting to kill his sister with an axe in May, applied for leave to appeal his sentence and conviction in the Western Cape High Court On Tuesday.

Van Breda maintained throughout his trial that he was innocent. He says intruders broke in and murdered his parents, Martin and Teresa, his brother Rudi, and attempted to murder his sister Marli.

His legal team was however unable to convince Judge Siraj Desai of this, and he was handed three life sentences for the murders of his parents and brother, 15 years for the attempted murder of his sister and an additional year for obstructing the course of justice.

According to advocate Pieter Botha and Susan Galloway, Desai will pass judgment on the application for leave to appeal on Monday.

Initially, the judgement was meant to take place on Friday.

From what Desai said in court today, a successful appeal on the part of Van Breda’s defense seems unlikely.

“This case fits like a mosaic, pieces of a jigsaw puzzle … everything fits together,” he said. He seemed unconvinced by the arguments put forward in convicted murderer Henri Van Breda’s application for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence.

“One rarely gets a case as strong as this against the accused”, Desai told defence lawyer Piet Botha on Tuesday.

Defence lawyer Piet Botha argued that Van Breda had been convicted and sentenced based on circumstantial evidence. “We are faced with a very young person spending the rest of his life in jail with only circumstantial evidence against him.”

Botha said there was a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion.

READ MORE: Why did Henri van Breda do it?

But Desai countered: “Most criminal trials rely on circumstantial evidence,” and pointed out that the defence was not relying on “an irregularity” but rather saying “the onus was not discharged”.

Botha argued that a court of appeal may give more weight to concessions made by blood spatter expert Captain Marius Joubert who testified that the fact that Marli’s blood had not been found on the axe was “inexplicable”.

“It doesn’t require a quantum leap that a court of appeal may find differently.”

He also argued that another court may give more weight to the defence’s expert witness who testified about flaws in security at the De Zalze Estate in Stellenbosch, where the family resided.

Furthermore, more weight could be attached to defence witness Dr James Butler’s testimony and diagnosis of Van Breda with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.

“My client’s version from that morning to the end of his testimony remained the same in essence.”

Desai conceded that the three life sentences he handed down had been severe, but said he had not been given any mitigating factors to deviate from minimum legislation. “I asked you to give me a peg to hang my coat. You gave me no peg.”

“The sentence could have been different if this had been a product of a broken mind.”

But Botha said he could not argue that his client had been remorseful, as he had pleaded not guilty.

Furthermore, he said Van Breda had no motive and evidence showed the family had been “close knit with no problems”.

Desai shot back: “The flip side of that is what was the motive of an unknown intruder?”

He also said a key aspect of the case, Van Breda’s “classic” self inflicted injuries “were a fundamental pillar in the case”.

State prosecutor Susan Galloway dismissed the defence’s argument that the State had not proved premeditation. “He had to go from upstairs to downstairs to fetch the axe and knife. When he attacked his brother he aimed for the head. There cannot be another inference that it was premeditated.”

She said the defence was “nitpicking” and was “missing the wood from the trees”.

She added all had not been “happy families”. She said the defence’s criticism of the neighbour’s testimony had been unfounded. Stephanie Op’t Hof had testified about hearing an argument and loud voices coming from the Van Breda house from 10pm until midnight and had been “objective and honest”, Galloway said.

“There is no merit in the application for leave to appeal the conviction and sentence and it should be dismissed,” she argued.

Van Breda’s girlfriend Danielle Janse Van Rensburg attended court proceedings on Tuesday.

Van Breda is being held at Drakenstein prison in Paarl.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.

 




today in print