S v Soci

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Erasmus J
• Judgment Date: 08 December 1997
• Citation: 1998 (2) SACR 275 (E)
• Hearing Date: 24 November 1997
• Counsel: D Robinson for the State B Sandi (attorney) for the accused
• Court: Eastern Cape Division

Erasmus J:

The accused is charged with the murder of Mrs Mary Mills and the robbery of money and goods from her D house at 58 Market Street, Adelaide, on 1 April 1997. The accused pleaded not guilty on both counts. He offered no explanation of his plea. No defence was put to the State witnesses. Nor did the accused testify or produce any witnesses in his defence.

The State called a number of witnesses. It is not necessary I think to deal with each of them separately. I shall rather E outline the overall State case as it emerged from all their testimonies. I may add, however, that we have had no difficulty in accepting the evidence of all of them in toto. In fact for the most part their evidence went unchallenged.

The late Mrs Mary Mills joined her husband as a young bride to live and labour on their farm Goed Genoeg at Post Retief, F in the district of Adelaide. Over the years she played an active role in her society and was well-known and respected in the community of Adelaide.

When her husband died some years ago, her son, Mr Robert Mills, moved into the main house on the farm to stay with her. Her safety nevertheless became a matter of concern, especially after a robbery or some incident when she and her daughter were alone on the farm. Mr Mills could not stay with her all day as he had to see to the farming. After much G consideration, it was decided that she should move to town. She did so at the end of 1995. As her personal safety was still of great concern to them, Mr Mills introduced extensive security arrangements at the house that he bought for her at 58 Market Street, Adelaide. In addition to the existing fence, he erected a high electrified fence around the property. There H were only two gates allowing entrance to the premises. The motor gate was kept locked and was electrified. The other gate, for the use of persons, was in the fence opposite the front door of the house. It was the same height as the fence. This gate was not electrified but had a lock to it which engaged automatically upon it being closed. The key was kept in the house in a pot near the front door. At the gate there was an electric bell which rang in the house. There was also an I intercom by means of which a person in the house could speak to someone at the gate. Four fixed panic buttons in the house could set off an alarm. There was also a portable unit. A security gate on the front door offered further protection. J

Erasmus J

A It is clear from the witnesses Mrs Annie Constable and Mrs Agnes Adams, both of whom were at some time domestic workers of the deceased, that she was timid and highly safety conscious. The electrification of the fence was only switched off when the gardener had to work in its immediate vicinity. The gates were kept locked. Whenever some person B rang the front bell, the deceased or the domestic worker would always first look to see who it was. According to these witnesses the deceased would not open the front gate unless she was quite satisfied that it was safe to do so. If she was satisfied with the visitor she would take the key from the house and then unlock the front gate.

C Mrs Constable worked for the deceased for a period until some time before her death. She testified that the accused also worked for the deceased as a gardener during the same period. (I deal later more fully with the circumstances of his employment with her.) At this point I merely mention, in the context of the security arrangements, that according to Mrs D Constable the deceased employed the accused only on Mondays and Fridays, ie the days upon which she too worked for the deceased. The deceased did not want to be alone with the gardener in any other circumstances. When she and the accused arrived for work in the morning they invariably found the front gate locked. They had to ring the bell for the deceased to open the gate for them.

E Mr Mills kept regular and close contact with his mother. He telephoned her daily and she spent Wednesdays on the farm with him, when she would bring him supplies that she had purchased in town. She also, until the day of her death, did the farming accounts, as she had done her whole married life. She was - so it seems - a precise organised woman. When she F came to the farm she brought him papers and documents in a briefcase that she kept for that purpose. This briefcase acquires significance later when I deal with the fingerprint evidence presented by the State.

I have set out in some detail the evidence regarding the personality and personal history of the deceased, as well as the G domestic and security arrangements at her home at the time of her death, for the reason that these circumstances form the backdrop to the evidence implicating the accused in the commission of the alleged crimes.

It is possible from the evidence to establish a fairly full and accurate chronicle of the events leading up to and occurring at H the house of the deceased on 1 April 1997.

Mrs Constable testifies that she knows the accused. He is the son of her husband's brother. He grew up in the East London area. Prior to 1997 she had last seen the accused in 1984 in East London when he was about 12 years old. At some stage, I while she was in the employ of the deceased, the accused came to her in Adelaide. She took him into her house as he was homeless and because he was a relation of her husband. He had no luggage with him. He was unemployed. Therefore, when the deceased told her that she was looking for someone to work in the garden, she suggested the accused. Mrs Mills J agreed and the accused commenced working on the first Monday after 27 January 1997. As I have mentioned

Erasmus J

he worked on Mondays and Fridays. Mrs Constable testifies that on 20 February 1997 she stopped working for the A deceased as she required more money than the deceased was paying her. The accused left the deceased's employ at the same time and went to work at Post Retief.

I interpose to deal with the evidence of Mr Lesley Booi, as it is relevant at this point in the sequence of events. In the B period prior to the death of the deceased he worked as a carpenter on Mr Mills' farm. The accused worked for him as an assistant. On 26 March 1997, the Wednesday prior to the Easter weekend of 1997, he and the accused were driven to town by the deceased. When she dropped them off at their destination, she spoke to the accused. The accused later told Mr Booi that the deceased had asked him to work for her again as a gardener. C

Mrs Constable confirms that the accused was re-engaged by Mrs Mills prior to the Easter weekend. The accused told her so. On Tuesday, 1 April 1997, the accused informed her that he was going to work. She tried to persuade him not to go as it was raining and she knew that the deceased did not want work done in the garden on rainy days. He said that the D deceased wanted him to work on the drains in the street outside the house. The accused left for work, but did not return that day, or ever thereafter. He left behind him in the house a jacket which he had brought with him from East London. Mrs Constable says that the accused had always taken the jacket with him to work, but on the day in question he had left it E behind at the house.

She heard of his arrest some weeks later. As it was cold, she took this jacket to him where he was in detention at Fort Beaufort.

Sergeant Erlank, a member of the SA Police Service, lives in Market Street, Adelaide, next door to number 58. He knew F the accused to be the deceased's gardener. On 1 April 1997 he returned home from work for lunch at about 12:40. He saw the accused sitting on his haunches cutting grass with a pair of sheep shears in the vicinity of the driveway near the garage. A photograph of the driveway taken on 2 April 1997 clearly indicates that the grass in that area had been partially clipped. Sergeant Erlank stated that lying next to the accused was a pair of yellow double-handed grass shears. He G identifies these as those visible on photographs taken of the premises on 2 April 1997. He says that he went back to work after lunch and returned home after 19:00. He then noticed that the tools were still lying on the grass in the deceased's yard. This was unusual as the deceased's tools had always been stored away by the time he got home from work in the H past. He further noted that there was still washing on the deceased's washing line, which too was unusual as the deceased normally removed her washing from the line during the course of the afternoon.

Mr Mills testifies that he telephoned his mother on the morning of 1 April 1997. This was the Tuesday after the Easter I weekend. She told him that the staff had not arrived in the house or the garden. He invited her to visit him that day, but she stated that she would rather be doing the washing herself that day. He again telephoned her at about 19:30 that evening. There was however no reply. He became concerned and telephoned Mr Anthony Meier, a friend of his and of the deceased. J

Erasmus J

A Mr Meier confirms that he received the call from Mr Mills at about 20:15 that evening. Mr Mills asked him to find out why his mother was not answering her phone. Mr Meier went to the deceased's house where he found the front gate standing ajar. The house was in darkness. Her front door was standing slightly open but the security gate was locked. He B became very worried at what he had found and telephoned Mr Mills for permission to break into the house. After phoning the police he returned to the house and broke open the gate with a crowbar he had borrowed from a neighbour. He entered the house. Everything seemed to be in order except that in the office things appeared to have been tossed around - which C was not normal. He could not find Mrs Mills in the house. After further searching the premises he went...