The appellant was convicted in the regional court on five counts of sexual assault and one count of rape of an 11-year-old complainant, a neighbour who frequently visited the appellant’s home. The complainant alleged multiple incidents during 2011–2012 in which the appellant touched and rubbed her breasts and vagina, threatened her, and on one occasion digitally penetrated her vagina while his wife was nearby. The matter came to light after the complainant complained of vaginal pain and ulcers were discovered by her mother, leading to medical examinations and psychological assessment. The appellant denied the sexual aspects of the incidents, admitting only to consensual tickling at the complainant’s request, and alleged that the complainant fabricated the allegations at her mother’s instigation. Medical evidence revealed genital ulcers of uncertain cause and an intact hymen. The regional court convicted the appellant; the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but reduced the effective sentence. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal concerned convictions only.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The case reaffirms South African principles on the evaluation of evidence from single child witnesses in sexual offence cases, clarifying that contradictions and imperfect recall do not necessarily undermine credibility. It confirms the statutory definition of sexual penetration under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 and rejects misconceptions regarding the evidentiary significance of an intact hymen. The judgment underscores a holistic, common-sense approach to evidence in sexual offence prosecutions.