Van der Watt v The State

On 21 July 2003, the appellant was convicted in the regional court, Pretoria, of raping Mary Sesane, his domestic worker. The alleged rape occurred on 30 January 2000 in her room located in his yard, approximately 10 metres from the main house where he lived with his wife and children. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The appellant admitted sexual intercourse had taken place but pleaded consent. The complainant testified that the appellant came to her room around 01h40, carrying a firearm wrapped in a T-shirt and a 2-litre Coke, instructed her not to scream, and raped her. She reported the incident to police the following day. The appellant's version was that he went to her room late in the evening, they chatted, he asked if she wanted to have sexual intercourse, she agreed on condition they use condoms and that he pay her, and consensual intercourse took place. The following day he borrowed R20 from her, and later paid her R50 for the sexual intercourse plus R20 for the loan, along with her salary. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 26 September 2005.

• Whether the complainant's evidence as a single witness was credible and reliable
• Whether the medical evidence supported the complainant's version of forcible rape
• Whether the appellant's version of consensual sexual intercourse was reasonably possibly true
• Whether the trial court and High Court properly evaluated the evidence and applied the criminal standard of proof

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and substituted with an order upholding the appeal and setting aside both the conviction and sentence.

In cases involving a single witness to an alleged rape where the accused's defense is consent, the court must critically evaluate the complainant's credibility by examining material improbabilities, contradictions, and whether the complainant's conduct is consistent with the alleged offense. Medical evidence stating injuries are 'compatible with forcible penetration' does not exclude consensual intercourse, particularly where wild or rough consensual sex is alleged. Corroboration requires credible evidence that renders the complainant's version more likely and the accused's version less likely on disputed issues, not merely confirmation of undisputed facts. Where the accused's version is reasonably possibly true and the complainant's evidence contains significant improbabilities and fabrications, the accused's version must be accepted and he must be acquitted. The State bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and courts must not rely on generalizations, inaccurate summaries of evidence, or assumptions when evaluating credibility.

The court commented that when an accused proffers an explanation for why he believes he has been falsely implicated, he is speculating rather than testifying on a matter of fact, and cannot be blamed if the explanation proves incorrect. What matters is whether he was truthful about the incident he relies upon. The court also criticized the use of 'bald generalisations' by courts, such as assumptions about what is 'very uncommon' behavior between domestic workers and their employers, particularly when based on incorrect factual summations. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate record-keeping and judgment-writing, noting that the magistrate's inaccurate description of medical findings led to wrong conclusions.

This case is significant in South African criminal law for emphasizing the proper evaluation of single witness testimony in sexual offence cases. It demonstrates that courts must carefully scrutinize the credibility and reliability of a complainant's evidence, identify material improbabilities and contradictions, and not rely on generalized assumptions or inaccurate summaries of evidence. The judgment reinforces that corroboration means evidence supporting the complainant's version and rendering the accused's version less probable on disputed issues, not merely evidence confirming undisputed facts. It also confirms that when an accused's version is reasonably possibly true, it must be accepted, and the State's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt requires acquittal. The case illustrates the importance of factual accuracy in judgment writing and proper application of the criminal standard of proof.