‘Frankel child abuse law’: There will be a decision soon

Closing submissions were made in the High Court in Johannesburg yesterday for an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) scrapping the 20-year prescription on child abuse cases.

Now the ball is in acting Judge Clare Hartford’s court.

The amendment may become known as “Frankel’s Law”, in order to give voice to people who may wish to claim they were sexually assaulted.

For two days, advocate Anton Katz and others argued that section 18 of the CPA – which prescribes that after 20 years various sexual assault cases lapse and victims can no longer institute criminal proceedings against alleged abusers – be done away with.

The eight applicants, Nicole Levenstein, Paul Diamond, George and Katherine Rosenberg, Daniela McNally, Lisa Wegner, Shane Rothquel and Marinda Smith, claimed they were sexually assaulted by prominent Johannesburg businessperson Sydney Frankel up to 30 years ago.

They claimed the abuse happened when they in the care of the billionaire Frankel while aged between seven and 15 at five locations: Abbotsford in Johannesburg, a horse farm in Kyalami, a game farm in Buffelshoek, in Mpumalanga, the Arcadia Jewish Children’s Home then in Parktown, and at his Athol home.

The eight were not raped, so the offences lapsed after 20 years, as reports were not made.

Frankel died before he could contest the claims, but the eight want the law changed so other victims of child sexual abuse, which falls short of rape (which never prescribes), will be spared their ordeal of not seeing justice done.

Katz pleaded for the offending piece of law to be “declared inconsistent with the constitution … and invalid in so far as it bars, in all circumstances, the right to institute a prosecution for all sexual offences … for children”.

He also wanted the words “and all other sexual offences, whether in terms of common law or statute” to replace the offences excluded by the Act.

Katz asked the court to suspend the Act immediately, substitute it with the proposed wording, and tie up any loose ends so the Constitutional Court could “rubber stamp” the new law this year or next, depending on the court roll.

ALSO READ: 

//

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.