Christopher Panayiotou, the man accused of conspiracy to murder his wife, teacher Jayde Panyiotou, was fighting all morning in a Port Elizabeth court to try and secure bail.
Meanwhile prosecutor Marius Stander has confirmed that co-accused Thando Siyoli has struck a deal with the State, and will be a section 204 witness which could mean that he will not serve prison time. Panayiotou, 28, who is accused of being the master-mind behind the murder of his wife Jayde on April 21 faces charges of conspiracy to commit murder, murder‚ kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and defeating the ends of justice. Thando Siyoli‚ 31‚ and Sizwezakhe Vumazonke‚ 30‚ are Panayiotou’s co-accused. Magistrate Abigail Beeton has remanded the verdict until tomorrow morning (Friday, 5 June) stating she will present her judgment, but not her reasons.
The State has a strong case to try and prevent him from getting bail. This might be a lengthy read below, but well worth it. It is the full statement by the investigating officer arguing against bail. It also includes a transcript of a secret recoring made of Panayiotou’s meeting with one of his co-accused.
RHYNHARDT SWANEPOEL, state in English under oath,
I am a Lieutenant in the SA Police Service attached to the Organized Crime Unit, Port Elizabeth. I am the investigating officer in this matter, Kabega Park CAS 229/04/2015. I have been utilized as a Detective for 26 years. I have 30 years’ service in the SA Police Service. I can be contacted at 041-3936000.
I don’t wish to repeat the charge sheet. I have consulted with officials at the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and can inform the court that the applicant will be arraigned in the High Court on the charges as has been formulated.
I now wish to deal with the State’s case against the applicant. Each allegation that I refer to is at present being supported by evidence contained in affidavits and does not refer to information contained in any confessions or pointings-out made by the co-accused in the matter. The case against the applicant can be summarized as follows:
- The applicant and the deceased have been married for approximately two years. They have been in a relationship for the past eleven years;
- The applicant and the deceased resided in a townhouse at 19 Stellen Glen Complex, Deacon Street, Kabega Park, Port Elizabeth;
- The applicant has a 10% business interest in the OK Grocer, Algoa Park and he is also the owner of the Infinity Club, a cocktail bar adjacent to the OK Grocer. Accused 1 was employed by the applicant as a bouncer/ security at this Club;
- The applicant has been involved in a sexual extra-marital relationship with a female working at the OK Grocer for the past three years. The applicant bought her numerous gifts, they met secretly at hotels, restaurants and even at the applicants house when the deceased was with her parents on a parental farm;
- The father of the applicant loved the deceased as his own daughter. During approximately October 2014 it came to the attention of the applicant’s father that the applicant was involved in this extra-marital relationship. The applicant’s father informed the applicant in no uncertain terms that if the relationship were to continue the applicant would run the risk of being disinherited. The applicant’s father however decided not to bring the state of affairs to the attention of the deceased. Despite promises by the applicant the relationship continued;
- The mistress of the applicant was not completely at ease with the applicant getting married to the deceased and often raised her frustrations and voiced her anger at the applicant. The applicant then had to turn to the best friend of the mistress to assist him in calming the situation down. The applicant went as far as to buy expensive gifts for the friend of the mistress for her assistance in smoothing the secret love affair over. At times the best friend was also invited over to party with the applicant and his mistress at his house whilst the deceased was on the farm with her parents;
- The deceased was a schoolteacher at Riebeeck College in Uitenhage. She was part of a lift club that travelled to Uitenhage. She would drive to Uitenhage every alternative week, and during the other weeks she would wait outside the Stellen Glen Complex in Deacon Street from where she would get a lift to Uitenhage, being fetched at about 6h30 – 6h40 in the morning;
- Roundabout September 2014 the applicant approached accused 1 to source a “hitman/ shooter” to kill someone. At that stage it was not discussed who the person to be killed was. Accused 1 approached at least three “potential hitmen” without success. During the course of events it became known to accused 1 that the person to be killed was the deceased. The applicant explained that his wife was spending too much money and he felt he was being forced into buying a house against his will. The applicant was eager for the deceased to be killed before the holidays as it would be difficult to kill her if she was not travelling to Uitenhage;
- The father of the applicant was not in favour of the applicant purchasing a house in Port Elizabeth. He voiced his concern to the applicant and indicated “his daughter” should stay in Uitenhage where she was a schoolteacher and the applicant should travel to Port Elizabeth. The deceased and applicant however proceeded in buying a house to the value of R2,2 million in Lovemore Estate, Port Elizabeth. The deceased’s parents agreed to assist them with an amount of R250,000-00. In light of the applicant’s decision to proceed to buy a house in Port Elizabeth he decided not to approach his father to assist him financially in the purchase of the house;
- On 13 March 2015 the applicant approached a financial institution in order to obtain a loan, for the amount of R150,000-00, in order to pay the transfer cost of the new residence. Due to the over commitment in his financial position this institution declined the application. The loan for the amount of R151,000-00 was approved. The monies were transferred to the account of the applicant from where the transfer duties were paid;
- During February 2015 accused 1 approached accused 3 and he agreed to kill the deceased;
- The applicant agreed to pay an amount of R70,000-00 to have the deceased killed. Unbeknown to the applicant accused 1 would profit R30,000-00 and the balance of R40,000-00 would be paid over to the shooter;
- Accused 3 then however disappeared and only made contact with accused 1 early in April. Accused 3 indicated the need to rent a vehicle. The applicant paid an amount of R3,000-00 towards the R6,000-00 to rent the vehicle;
- On 9 April 2015 accused 3 rented a vehicle in order to execute the plan in killing the deceased. The vehicle rented by accused 3 was however equipped with a tracker device;
- A plan was put into operation to kill the deceased. Accused 1 and accused 3 would be at Infinity Pub and Grub. The applicant would invite the deceased to Infinity for Sunday lunch where she and her vehicle would be pointed out to accused 3. Accused 3 and others would then follow her and kill her along the way. This plan never materialised as the deceased did not want to go to the Infinity Club;
- The applicant then suggested that the “hitmen” follow her whilst travelling in the vehicle of her friend to school and then kill her. The applicant furnished the details of the friend and vehicle to accused 1 who in turn passed it on to accused 3. Accused 3 on at least two occasions went to the friend’s residential address. This is confirmed by both cellular phone mapping and the tracker in the vehicle. The information regarding the location of the friend’s residence could only have been furnished by the applicant. The residence is completely off any main roads. On the day that the deceased was to be killed it however rained to hard and the plan was abandoned;
- The applicant then suggested that the deceased be killed outside the gate where she is fetched by her friend to travel to Uitenhage. The applicant indicated it had to look like a robbery or hijacking;
- Accused 1, having been shown by the applicant where the deceased waits for her lift in the morning, “identified” the deceased to accused 3 and also pointed out to him from where the deceased is collected;
- Prior to 21 April 2015 accused 3 visited the pick-up point of the deceased on a number of occasions in order to scout the surroundings and movements of the deceased. This is indeed confirmed by both cellular phone mapping and the tracker in the vehicle;
- On the morning of 21 April 2015 accused 3 went to the Stellen Glen Complex in Deacon Street. He circled the complex before stopping by the deceased. The deceased was assaulted with blunt force to the head and kidnapped from where she was waiting for her lift. Accused 3 placed her in the boot of the rented vehicle and travelled in the direction of KwaNobuhle. In close proximity to the Rooihoogte road he stopped the vehicle, removed the deceased from the boot and carried her, a distance into the veld, where she was shot twice through the back and at close range through the head. Accused 3 then phoned accused 1 from this scene to inform him he has “completed the job” and wanted payment. From there accused 3 travelled to KwaNobuhle where he withdrew R1,500-00 from the account of the deceased. Accused 3 later travelled to Kwazakhele where he attempted to withdraw another amount, but the card was withheld as the incorrect pin number was entered;
- Accused 1 made contact with the applicant and informed him the “job has been done” and payment was required. That same evening the applicant travelled into Kwazakhele where he met accused 1 and paid the money over to accused 1. Accused 1 was with his girlfriend when the applicant arrived. The total payment, payment for accused 1 and accused 3, was left with the girlfriend of accused 1. The cellular mapping of both the applicant and accused 1 confirm this meeting and the girlfriend of accused 1 confirm the handing over of the money;
- Accused 3 later that same evening collected his money from accused 1. This meeting is also confirmed through cellular mapping and the tracker in the vehicle;
- A day later accused 3 contacted accused 1 and demanded more money. When accused 1 conveyed this to the applicant he was given a R1,000-00 and told to destroy both the sim-card and cellular phone. Accused 1 only changed his sim-card;
- Accused 1 was, unbeknown to the applicant, arrested on 26 April 2015;
- Upon the arrest of accused 1 he immediately identified the applicant as the mastermind behind the killing of the deceased and accused 3 as the shooter of the deceased. Accused 1 also handed his R30,000-00 received from accused 1 to the SA Police Service. Accused 1 decided to fully co-operate with the SA Police Service;
- On 28 April 2015 accused 1 contacted the applicant indicating he needed money. The applicant indicated that he could not talk. The investigative team later contacted the applicant and enquired whether the applicant knows the whereabouts of accused 1, how he can be traced and when last he had contact with accused 1. The applicant indicated that he could not assist in that regard. Subsequent to these calls the applicant in fact sent people to the house of the girlfriend of accused 1 enquiring where he could be found. During the course of the day on 29 April 2015 accused 1 sent a sms message to the phone of the applicant furnishing him with a number where he could be found. He further informed the applicant that the police are looking for him and he needs to flee. The applicant then set up a meeting determining the meeting point. Subsequent to the meeting being arranged the investigative team made contact and once again enquired whether the applicant has any news about the whereabouts of accused 1. The applicant denied any knowledge. Shortly before the meeting the applicant phoned and changed the meeting point. Accused 1 travelled to the meeting point with an undercover police official as the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle was rigged with a sound and audio recording device. The applicant arrived, circled the meeting point before he stopped next to the vehicle in which accused 1 was seated. At 19h10 on 29 April 2015 the applicant climbed into the vehicle;
- The applicant requested that the police official climb out of the vehicle which he did. The applicant then removed his battery and sim-card from his own phone and instructed accused 1 to do the same. The broad outline of the conversation that followed can be set out as follows:
- “TS (referring to accused 1) – Things aren’t right now.
- CP (referring to the applicant) – Why?
- TS – Babalwa called me and said the police was there at my house. Everything is changing now.
- CP – But why are the police after you?
- TS – I don’t know. I think here is an informer somewhere, somehow.
- CP – Did these guys blit?
- TS – Which ones?
- CP – Your friend.
- TS – Sizwe.
- CP – Did they tell anything?
- TS – No, even them they are on the run.
- CP – Oh.
- TS – I told them they must not be here.
- CP – Where they going to?
- TS – They didn’t tell me. I changed my sim-card.
- CP – Yes, but you need to change it again now.
- TS – After this we ……..I’m going to call you.
- CP – What.
- TS – I’m going to call you on my new number.
- CP – No you are not. You just missed call me. Don’t phone me or sms me.
- TS – What’s going on boss?
- CP – I don’t know bru.
- TS – Hey, this thing I didn’t see it was going to be like this.
- CP – Here.
- TS – What is this?
- CP – Plus minus 5 (reference to R5,000-00). Where are you going to now?
- TS – I’m going back to Jeffreysbay. I’m worried about my family. Boss this thing I did’t know it was going to be like this. I thought it was going to be easy.
- CP – Yes but why did they say to you when they fetched you the other day.
- TS – They fetched me and then they asked me questions.
- CP – And…What did they ask you?
- TS – Fucking questions.
- CP – Hey ….
- TS – Nothing serious boss.
- CP – Tell me. Did they ask you if you were involved.
- TS – Yes sort of something like that.
- CP – So what did you say.
- TS – ……those are the stupid ones.
- CP – So where did they take you?
- TS – They took me me the police station and there they took my statement, but in my mind …. You mos told me we will be investigated.
- CP – Yes.
- TS – So I was ready for that, but I was not ready.
- CP – So why are you running away?
- TS – They keep coming to my house.
- CP – Did you take your phone anywhere?
- TS – Ja.
- CP – No, your other phone.
- TS – I destroyed it.
- CP – Did you?
- TS – I told them to destroy it and then I destroyed it.
- CP – Yeah and the sim-card and everything. Did you throw it away?
- TS – Yes. I’m not using the old number. I’m using this number.
- CP – OK. So they didn’t ask anything about me?
- TS – No.
- CP – Or if I’m involved with anything?
- TS – No. Ja… but haven’t they asked you?
- CP – Yes they have asked me, but now, but now you’ve been phoning me all day and they have been tracing my phone.
- TS – The thing is, who could I call? I had no-one to call.
- CP – I know, but now you have to destroy that phone. I have to tell them that you phoned me otherwise they are going to think that I am involved.
- TS – Ja.
- CP – So you need to destroy that phone now. The phone and the sim-card my boy, both.
- TS – Ja.”
At that point the applicant turned around towards accused 1 who was seated behind him in the vehicle and searched him for a wire. (recording device)
- TS – “I don’t trust you now.
- CP – I’m just checking.
- TS – Even me I’m not trusting you now, just the thing of the police that are coming to my house.
- CP – I swear on my life I didn’t say anything, but they are obviously seeing who I have been phoning. They are taping my phone and my every number I phone, they are investigating my family too.
- TS – ……..
- CP – Somebody said something.
- TS – Ja, because it’s like murder thing now it’s not like a robbery or something.
- CP – But that’s what I said to you. It became kidnapping and and a murder instead of just making it a robbery outside the house.
- TS – …… I think about my family now. I think about Siyanda. I think about the two little girls. I think about my gym.
- CP – They went to search you house says Siyanda.
- TS – Siyanda says so? You see.
- CP – But there’s nothing there about it so stop stressing.
- TS – ……. You know why I’m actually stressing. I’m not safe anymore, because I have to run away even from Sizwe because I told you mos what Sizwe said. That money was too little because now they running away too.
- CP – Yes, but it is because of them Thando. They made it the way they did. They made it so big, but they have run away hey? How many of them?
- TS – I don’t know. I only know Sizwe.
- CP – Is it black guys or coloured guys.
- TS – Sizwe is a black guy.
- CP – And the others?
- TS – I don’t know if hmm…the others, but I know Sizwe. I was communicating with Sizwe.
- CP – Hmm.
- TS – But I don’t know if Sizwe was walking alone.
- CP – OK. Listen to me. I am going to report that you phoned me now.
- TS – And then you going to call me?
- CP – No, but you are going to destroy the phone.
- TS – So you are going to give them my number.
- CP – Hmm, yes, I have to tell them. They investigating me. If I lie to them they going to take me in. So I’m telling you. In half an hour I am going to phone the investigating officer. He was at my house now now, that’s why I can’t talk to you all the time, and my uncle is all around me. So I’m going to tell them, hmm, that you came to see me wanting to borrow money because people took you for questioning for steroids. You need to go and hide in Jeffreys for a while and keep quiet.
- TS –……….. Siyanda ……………… and what about the rent for the gym.
- CP – Yes, but I can’t do anything because I’m under investigation so I can’t just give over money all the time, so don’t worry me and Siyanda will talk.
- TS – Yeah.
- CP – OK. Are you going to hide out that side in Jeffreys.
- TS – Yeah I’m going to stay a while there or maybe some ……
- CP – OK so I’m going to say, you must destroy your phone now and the sim-card, and I’m going to say you said you going to East London.
- TS – ….. OK…..
- CP – Yeah I am going to be OK as long as they never know about us Thando. I never ever, I only ever helped you with the gym, I never did anything with you. I’ll sort out your family, you hide low OK.
- TS – …..
- CP – You need to be gone for a few months till this thing calms down.
- TS – If I need you I will missed call you.
- CP – No! Not on this number.
- TS – On what number.
- CP – You going to missed call me once and then you are going to wait until I get another phone and sim-card.
- TS – Ja.
- CP – OK. Allright. OK. There is about five there you sort yourself out.
- TS – Yes.
- CP – OK, because I am all out now. This thing has cost me a lot of money. The family is also looking at me.
- TS – Serious?
- CP – Yes. OK.
- TS – This thing is not right now.
- CP – No, these boys made it big. I told you to let them do it outside the house and take the bags and the rings and then they didn’t take the watch or anything.
- TS – They just left.
- CP – They just left everything there. You see, so it looks like a hit now. So they are after me, and that’s why I can’t just meet you in front of people like this Thando.
- TS – OK.
- CP – OK. Don’t phone me and don’t sms, they are watching the sms’s because you said.
- TS – Ja, but I sms you and you don’t reply, me at the other side I’m hiding and then.
- CP – No, but you need to give me time. So from now you just give me one missed call on this number first time and never again. Don’t ever phone me or sms me to this number because they are listening to us.
- TS – Even now?
- CP – Well yes, but I put it off. When you are talking on the phone they are listening that’s why I have to report this now. OK. Allright. I am going to say you are going to East London.
- TS – OK. …..
- CP – OK. OK cheers.
- TS – So I need to missed call you.
- CP – Yes, but then you wait for me to phone you back. “
- About an hour after the meeting the applicant phoned a member of the investigating team. The member’s phone was on silent. When the member returned the call to the applicant, the applicant informed him he had just spoken with accused 1 and that accused 1 is on his way to East London. At no stage did the applicant inform the police he was going to meet with accused 1;
- Later that evening the applicant was arrested at the house of his parents. By that stage he had already purchased a brand new phone and sim-card.
I hereby oppose bail because of the following reasons:
It is likely that the accused, should they be released on bail, would endanger the safety of the public or a particular person or will commit a schedule offence.
To enable the Court to adjudicate the grounds for Section 60(4)(a), the court may take the following factors into account:
Section 60(5)(a) – Degree of violence
I have already dealt with this aspect.
It is likely that the accused, should he be released on bail, will attempt to evade his trial.
To enable the Court to adjudicate the matter the following might be taken into account:
Section 60(6)(a) – Emotional, family, community or occupational ties of the accused to a place.
Besides the property that the applicant’s family own in South Africa they also own property in Cyprus to where he can easily move. The deceased and her mother had visited these properties with the applicant.
Section 60(6)(b) – assets held by the accused.
With all respect it appears the applicant only has debt. The residence at 19 Stellen Glen Complex was purchased for an amount of R540,000-00 and at present the outstanding amount is R583,000-00. The average selling price for similar units in the complex is between R500,000-00 and R550,000-00. The applicant owes a further R200,000-00 on his vehicle. He further owes R2,2 million on the Lovemore Estate property. I have been informed that the monthly bond repayment on that amount would be R20,000-00 per month. The applicant only earns a salary of R30,000-00 per month. If the applicant leaves he will basically be leaving debt behind. I therefore disagree with the propositions set out in paragraph 51.1 of the applicant’s affidavit.
Section 60(6)(f) – Nature and gravity of the charge on which the accused would be tried.
The charges which the State is confident will be proven are extremely serious as set out above.
Section 60(6)(g) – Strength of the case against the accused.
I am of the opinion that the State has a strong case against the applicant. The case against the applicant most certainly does not rest solely on the evidence of a single witness or on the evidence contained in the video recording. The proposition that the applicant was only arrested after the meeting and therefore there was no evidence to arrest him earlier is incorrect. A decision was taken to arrest him at the latest opportunity before it became public knowledge that accused 1 had been arrested.
Section 60(6)(h) – Severity of the punishment which is likely to be imposed.
I believe it has already been brought to the attention of all what the potential minimum sentences are upon conviction. It is my understanding that it forms part of the charge sheet. I hold the view that the prospect of life imprisonment is definitely a contributing factor to making one a flight risk.
Section 60(6)(i) – The binding effect and enforceability of bail conditions.
It is very difficult to enforce bail conditions on someone who has the means to flee and have somewhere to go. The family of the applicant own property in Cyprus and therefore he has somewhere else to go. The deceased and her mother had visited these properties with the applicant. I therefore disagree with the sentiments echoed in paragraph 51.2 of his affidavit. The well-known George Louka (Lolly Jackson murder) was granted bail and his passport was handed in. He however walked across the border to Mozambique from where he travelled to Cyprus. It took the authorities 5 years to get him back to South Africa. I have ascertained that there is no bi-lateral extradition treaty between South Africa and Cyprus. Both countries are however signatories to the European Convention, but this process take longer. I have noted what is stated in paragraph 51.4 of the applicant’s affidavit. INTERPOL plays no role in the extradition of a person. INTERPOL has informed me that extraditions are done in accordance with a legal process governed by the Extradition Act, Act 67 of 1962.
It is likely that should the accused be released on bail that he would attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses.
In considering if there are grounds the Court may take into account the following:
Section 60(7)(a) – Familiarity of accused with witnesses.
At this stage of the bail application the applicant will be well aware that the “present accused 1”, the girlfriend of accused 1, his mistress, Chanelle Coutts, her friend Clarissa Kapp and Christine Swanepoel are very important witnesses against him. The applicant also knows the addresses of all these witnesses. He has not only shown his ability to interfere with witnesses and destroy evidence, but he had absolute no problem in involving Christine Swanepoel in his plan and making her details available to accused 1. It was with concern that the content of paragraph 58 of the applicant’s affidavit is noted. I can’t think how it would come about that the applicant is led to believe the witness will be held in a witness protection programme. I find it puzzling that someone as the applicant would be concerned about the whereabouts of the most important witness against him.
Section 60(7)(c) – Has the investigation been completed.
The investigation has not yet been completed. Forensic and DNA evidence are outstanding. (Touch DNA on money retrieved as well as the analysis of cellular phone data and retrieval previously deleted information). These results are extremely important as the State is attempting to link the money found in possession of accused 1 and accused 3 back to the applicant. The investigation will however be completed within the next three months.
Section 60(7)(d) – Relationship of the accused with witnesses and the extent to which they would be influenced.
It is my submission that the applicant has or has had a very close relationship with at least “present accused 1”, Chanelle Coutts and Clarissa Kapp. This makes it so much easier for the applicant to influence the witnesses. Special mention needs to be made about the position of Coutts. In the absence of the applicant she runs the OK Grocer, and with her testifying against the applicant her job is most certainly on the line. There is therefore a great opportunity for her to be influenced.
Section 60(7)(e) – Effective prohibiting of communication between accused and victims.
In this modern era of cell phones and other technologies it is impossible to prohibit communication should they be released. The video/audio recording also indicates the applicants understanding of how to circumvent normal detection of communications.
Likelihood that accused would disturb the public order and peace and security.
In considering if there are grounds the Court may consider the following:
Section 60(8)(A)(a) – Sense of shock and outrage of the Community.
The Community is outraged by this incident and it was, and is still reported in all the major newspapers all over the country. The application by Times Media to broadcast proceedings is a further indication of the outrage. Crime is the one concern that crosses all borders and affects all people. It is known that most citizens view the Justice cluster as ineffective. I however believe in our Justice system, with all its shortcomings and thus I believe that the applicant must not be released on bail.
Section 60(8)(A)(e) – will the release of accused undermine public confidence in the Justice System.
It is clear that the Community is in uproar because of this incident. They fear that the applicant will abscond and that their alleged ability to thwart jail would become true. It is expected by the Community that Justice should be served.
I have had insight into the affidavits submitted by and on behalf of the applicant and wish to respond on certain of these aspects.
Paragraphs 6 – 13
In these paragraphs the applicant refers to the conditions in prison. I have enquired and was told the conditions are not as portrayed in the applicant’s affidavit. I have arranged that an affidavit be obtained from the Department of Correctional Services in this regard. I also enquired and ascertained that at no stage did either the applicant or his legal team complain to Correctional Services regarding the applicant’s detention. Neither has any court application been brought against Correctional Services regarding his detention.
Paragraphs 25 – 29
It would appear that the applicant is nothing more than a store manager at the OK Grocer. He did not buy a share in the business. He was given a share and he draws a salary of R30,000-00. I find it hard to believe that the 90% shareholders in the OK Grocer will not be able to find a suitable manager to run the business at a cost of R30,000-00 per month. I am convinced that the 90% shareholders will not allow a business entity with a turnover of between R4m – R6m a month to run to ground. Towards the end of 2014 the mother of the applicant started assisting the applicant in the running of the business.
Paragraphs 38, 51.6 and 54
Mention is made about the Oscar Pretorius case, the Dewani matter and in specifically paragraph 54.1 of the Van Der Vyver matter. I do not know if the State had a strong case in those matters, but I certainly wasn’t the investigating officer. I do however wish to state that personally I have often agreed to accused being released on bail based on the fact that the State does not have a strong case. It has strangely come to my attention that at the time of the murder accused 3 was out on bail because it was alleged by the State that the case was not strong against the accused.
Mention is made of the fact that accused 1 is going to be a section 204 witness. I do not know who the source of information is for the applicant. I can inform the court that the only agreement in place between accused 1 and the State is that in the future he will testify against the applicant and that in conjunction with his legal representative an affidavit has been furnished to the State. The status of accused 1 is however the subject of a privileged discussion between his legal team and the State. Mention is further made of “entrapment”. Once again I do not know who the source of information is for the applicant. No entrapment took place at any stage. All the offences had already been committed. I have earlier referred to a recorded conversation between accused 1 and the applicant on 29 April 2015. I also just wish to add that the evidence against the applicant is most definitely not reliant on the evidence of a single witness. The one cautionary rule will most definitely not exist.
The applicant deals with a number of aspects in this paragraph. I find it strange why it is suggested that no motive has been raised as it has not been expected of me to disclose the motive. The motive for killing the deceased is actually very simple. The applicant was in financial difficulty. He hardly managed to keep head above water. He was now in the process of acquiring a further R2,2 million debt which meant it would be impossible for him to keep his mistress and wife happy. He was being forced into creating more debt so he decided to have the deceased killed, not to gain financially but to curtail his ever increasing debt.
This must be the most speculative proposition ever made. The applicant was arrested just prior to it becoming known that accused 1 had been arrested as he would then become a flight risk. From the time of the arrest of accused 1 it was decided to arrest the aaplicant. The time period from the arrest of accused 1 until the arrest of the applicant was used to find corroboration for the version of accused 1.
The applicant has already shown his ability and deceitfulness when it comes to cellular phones.
I am in the process of following up this allegation but can confirm that neither myself nor the prosecutor were involved in some agreement with any magistrate to deny the applicant bail. I see this allegation as an insult to the court.
It should be clear from what has been set out under paragraph 3 above that the applicant has already instructed that evidential material be destroyed. I here refer to the sim-card and phone used by accused 1 to initially communicate with the applicant and accused 3. He further instructed accused 1 during the 29 April meeting to destroy the phone and sim-card used. During this meeting he also instructed accused 1, the direct link to the applicant to disappear and gave him approximately R5,000-00 to disappear.
The applicant is correct if he states that after his arrest he has never furnished the police with any false information, but prior to his arrest he most definitely furnished false information and also withheld essential information.
I am not really in a position to comment on this proposition. I have however ascertained that trial dates are regularly available depending on the availability of the respective legal practitioners. In the affidavit of Alwyn Griebenow mention is made of the Leunberg matter and the Karin Van Der Merwe matter. I have been informed by the staff of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that both these matters had been postponed on a number of occasions because of the unavailability of counsel and/ or the fact that certain dates did not suit counsel.
I have been informed that the necessary arrangements can be made for counsel to consult at the High Court once the matter has been set down for trial. Up to this point neither myself, nor the prosecutor has been approached to assist in this regard.
Paragraph 7 of Alwyn Griebenow’s affidavit
I find this allegation extremely strange as this is a bail application. Never before has it been brought to my attention that a bail court first has to rule whether evidence is admissible before it is to be considered at a bail hearing.
The applicant never deals with his relationship with the deceased in any way in his application. The affidavits of both his parents deal in more detail with his relationship with the deceased. The high water mark is that the applicant alleges that he and the deceased was in love and got on very well. It is no wonder that the applicant had to google a eulogy that he “tweeked” and read at the funeral of the deceased. No mention is made in his affidavit of his relationship with Coutts.
I lastly wish to state that the investigation is ongoing and if certain further relevant information becomes available before Wednesday I am obliged to bring that to the attention of the court.
In view of the facts as stated above it is my submission to the Honourable Court that firstly, there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the release of the applicant on bail, and secondly that it would not be in the interest of justice to release the applicant on bail, and therefore I believe that bail should be refused.
I know and understand the contents of the above statement.
I have no objection to taking the prescribed oath.
I find the prescribed oath to be binding on my conscience.
2015 / 05 / 18