MAKHADO (LOUIS TRICHARDT) – After pleading guilty to a charge of indecent assault in November last year, 21-year-old Linus van Niekerk was finally sentenced last Friday.
Van Niekerk confessed to molesting an 11-year-old boy on at least five different occasions over a period of a year. The fact that he is the son of a local pastor, Pastor Hennie van Niekerk from the Abundant Life Ministries, sent shockwaves through the community.
Van Niekerk was to be sentenced on December 5, but Magistrate Bennie Smith withheld sentencing in the case, asking for the compilation of a clinical psychologist's report to determine whether or not Van Niekerk could be classified as a paedophile. Sentencing was postponed until January 30, in anticipation of the clinical psychologist's report. On January 30, Van Niekerk's case was again postponed until Friday, February 6, depending on whether or not the clinical psychologist would be able to attend the court proceedings.
On Friday, magistrate Bennie Smith ruled that it was not necessary for the clinical psychologist to attend the court proceedings. Only his report on whether or not Van Niekerk was a paedophile was entered before court. The report outlined several aspects of Van Niekerk's psychological history, such as the fact that the family's gardener had molested him at the age of 10. Van Niekerk's parents, however, never took him for psychological help. The report, amongst other things, concluded that although Van Niekerk's actions could be interpreted as those of a paedophile, according to the academic criteria, the technical and real characteristics of Van Niekerk's behaviour warrant closer scrutiny. These include the argument that Van Niekerk is a first-time offender, that he had committed the crime with only one person, that he took sole responsibility for the crime and that he had committed the crime with someone of the same sex. This, it is stated in the report, is more in line with the behaviour of a person merely exploring his own sexuality.
Mr André Naudé, who acted on behalf of Van Niekerk, concurred with the report's findings. He also submitted a second psychological report that offered largely the same conclusion. The turning point in the case, however, came when he argued that the law is very clear with regard to persons such as Van Niekerk.
In a Court of Appeal ruling it was stated that a person such as Van Niekerk should first undergo a process of rehabilitation, before merely sending him/her off to jail. The State had no counter-argument.
In passing sentence, magistrate Smith admitted that the court's hands are indeed tied by the ruling of the Court of Appeal. He warned Van Niekerk, however, that should he ever commit a similar offence, he would not again succeed in avoiding imprisonment. Van Niekerk was sentenced to two year's direct imprisonment, which was suspended for five years, on condition that he does not commit a similar offence. He is also to be supervised by a social worker for a period of three years, during which time he has to perform four hours of community service at the local hospital and old age home. In addition, he has to see a professional clinical psychologist twice a month and provide the court with a progress report every six months. He is also to move out of his parents' house and away from the adjacent Emmanuel Christian School as from February 9. He is to stay at his brother's home for a period of a year.