'Hewitt's assaults on girls weren't cruel, callous'
The SCA has assigned a date for Bob Hewitt, convicted of the rape of two children in the 1980s and indecently assaulting a teen a decade later, to appeal against his sentence.
|||Johannesburg - Exactly one year after disgraced tennis champion Bob Hewitt, was convicted of the rape of two children in the 1980s and indecently assaulting a teenager a decade later, the Supreme Court of Appeal has assigned a date for Hewitt to appeal against his sentence.
Last year, Judge Bert Bam convicted Hewitt in a damning judgment that labelled the 76-year-old a “violator of children”. Hewitt was sentenced to six years in prison due to his advanced age, but also ordered by the court to pay R100 000 to the Department of Justice to fund anti-abuse campaigns. Judge Bam later denied Hewitt leave to appeal the conviction, but allowed him to appeal the sentence through the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Last week, a year since the conviction, one of the lawyers involved with the case, Stacey Barbaglia, confirmed the SCA’s announcement that the appeal argument would go ahead onMay 3.
In February, both the State and Hewitt’s defence filed the heads of argument that form their respective cases. In their appeal argument, defence lawyers Johann Engelbrecht and Alwyn Griebenow insist that Hewitt’s rape of two children was neither “cruel’, “callous” nor “extremely brutal”.
“It is respectfully submitted that... it is clear the learned judge... overemphasised the seriousness of the offences and the aspect of deterrence,” the lawyers wrote.
“It is respectfully submitted that this crime cannot be described as one involving extreme brutality within the meaning ascribed thereto in S v Wilken... Neither can it be argued that (Hewitt’s) conduct was cruel or callous. When (the first victim, Twiggy Tolken) told (Hewitt) that he was hurting her, he immediately desisted, and as far as (the second victim) is concerned, it is clear she sustained no vaginal injuries,” the heads of argument read.
Hewitt’s legal team have argued that none of the victims appeared to have suffered any trauma after their childhood rapes, that the 76-year-old is too old to commit sexual offences again, and his poor health should be a factor in considering a non-custodial sentence. They argue that a prison sentence would be far harsher for Hewitt than for a regular criminal, and his fall from grace under the gaze of the public should also be a mitigating factor.
“It cannot be denied that (Hewitt) belongs to a class, the members of which, whatever their race, feel deeply the shame and stigma of a prison sentence,” the arguments read.
State advocate Carina Coetzee submitted her arguments against Hewitt’s appeal, stating that others convicted of the rape of minors had faced life in prison.
She said Judge Bam had taken into account Hewitt’s health when sentencing him to six years in prison, and that the former tennis star's sickliness had not affected his ability to run his profitable citrus farm in the Eastern Cape.
Coetzee insisted Hewitt had not shown any remorse for his crimes, and that the victims had indeed been traumatised by Hewitt’s “atrocious and heinous” crimes.
Hewitt has remained on bail pending his appeal since last year.
shain.germaner@inl.co.za
The Star