Johannesburg - Disgraced former tennis champion Bob Hewitt’s rape of two children is neither “cruel”, “callous” nor “extremely brutal”.
It also hasn’t traumatised his now adult victims, and a prison sentence is an egregious punishment for Hewitt’s crimes.
These are the arguments Hewitt will be relying on in his upcoming appeal against his six-year prison sentence and R100 000 fine.
As of Tuesday, it was exactly a year since Hewitt’s rape and sexual assault trial began, where Judge Bert Bam found Hewitt guilty of the rape of two children during the 1980s and indecently assaulting a third complainant in the 1990s, a teenager at the time.
Judge Bam provided a damning judgment that labelled Hewitt a “violator of children”, though he sentenced him to six years in prison because the former tennis pro was already 75 years old at the time.
He did insist that Hewitt also pay R100 000 to the Department of Justice to fund anti-abuse campaigns. He later denied Hewitt leave to appeal against the conviction, but allowed him to appeal the sentence through the Supreme Court of Appeal.
While a date has not yet been set for these proceedings, Hewitt’s lawyers, Johann Engelbrecht and Alwyn Griebenow, have now filed their heads of argument with the court.
“It is respectfully submitted that, it is clear the learned judge, so it is submitted, overemphasised the seriousness of the offences and the aspect of deterrence,” they argue.
“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”.
Hewitt’s legal team have argued that none of the victims have appeared to have suffered any trauma after their childhood rapes and that the 76-year-old is too old to commit sexual offences again, and his poor health should be a factor in considering a custodial sentence.
Read: ‘Hewitt’s team shaming victims’
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 has also submitted her own arguments against Hewitt’s appeal, stating that others convicted of the rape of minors had faced life in prison. She said that Judge Bam had taken into account Hewitt’s health when sentencing him to six years in prison, and that the ex-tennis star’s frailty had not affected his ability to run his profitable citrus farm in the Eastern Cape.
She insisted Hewitt had not shown any remorse for his crimes, and that the victims had been traumatised by Hewitt’s “atrocious and heinous” crimes. Hewitt has been out on bail pending his appeal since last year.
The women and children’s rights organisations monitoring Hewitt’s case since its inception are outraged by his legal arguments.
Germaine Vogel, advocacy manager at Women and Men Against Child Abuse (WMACA), said the State had already shown Hewitt leniency by allowing him to be out on bail pending his appeal.
“The prison sentence handed to Hewitt on May 18, 2015 is more than fair to him. The heinous crime of raping a child should consistently carry a life sentence if our society wishes to eradicate the scourge,” said Vogel.
“In his appeal, Hewitt implores the State to ignore the outcry of organisations such as WMACA and to consider the views of the reasonable, law-abiding and balanced members of the community - we question what right-minded person could underestimate the severity and immorality of raping children.”
Vogel added that Hewitt’s failure to take responsibility for his crimes over a period of 14 years showed that he remained a danger to society and must be imprisoned.
The Star