No justification for violence: Court dismisses appeal in intimate partner violence case

IOL News

13 hours ago

The repeat offender, who had previously also served a prison sentence for murder, argued that he was provoked and could not foresee the death of his girlfriend after the violent assault which occurred after a night where the couple had consumed alcohol.
Image: File
A man who beat and kicked his partner to death in an alcohol-induced rage will continue to serve his 20 years imprisonment term after his appeal against his sentence failed in the Western Cape High Court.
The repeat offender, who had previously also served prison sentence for murder, argued that he was provoked and could not foresee the death of his girlfriend after the violent assault which occurred after a night where the couple had consumed alcohol.
Bafana Khumalo, co-executive director at Anti-GBV NPO Sonke Gender Justice, said they welcomed the court's decision and said there is no justification for violence. Khumalo said they welcomed the seriousness with which the court handled the matter and for denying the appeal against sentence.
'This indicates the seriousness that the court considered this matter. The judgment affirms the fact that there can be no justification for violence. Alcohol and anger can never be an excuse,' said Khumalo.
Khumalo added that it amplifies how the law should deal with perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
'This judgment strengthens our jurisprudence on how IPV matters should be handled. There is a strong message to all of us in society that such acts of brutality will not be tolerated and where there has been violation as in this case there will be accountability.
'The lesson for all of us is that we need to redouble our efforts in ensuring that in our prevention programmes such cases should serve as teaching moments particularly for boys and men that there is no justification for using violence. Where there's a difference of opinion parties should engage in dispute resolving mechanisms that do not include any form of violence,' said Khumalo.
It emerged in court that the couple became involved in an argument which revolved around the man's consumption of wine which the girlfriend had bought and her accusation that the man failed to contribute financially to their joint household. The man argued that he was provoked and angry but could distinguish between lawful and unlawful actions and act according to such knowledge.
In a plea statement he pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to an alternative charge of culpable homicide.
'He also stated that the deceased threw wine at his face and threatened to return to her estranged husband and have more children with him. Consequently, the appellant became angry at the accusation and started hitting the deceased with fists in her face.
'She fell to the ground, and he started kicking the deceased in her face and on her body. The appellant explained that the deceased lost consciousness. The appellant fetched a jug of water and poured the water over her face. According to the appellant, the deceased regained consciousness and he informed her that he would be leaving. The appellant then left the house,' the judgment read.