Serial rapist not eligible for day parole

Published Nov 17, 2024

Share

THE lawyer of a serial rapist still regarded as a “dangerous criminal”, who already spent more than 23 years in jail and was currently making another bid for freedom, asked the court to consider day parole for his client.

Advocate Sean Edwards made the suggestion at the Durban Regional Court this week on behalf of his client Andre Gregory Mahomed, 54, who was convicted of raping 43 women in Durban and Pretoria during the 1990’s.

His 22 Durban victims were from the Morningside area. Mahomed was arrested, but he managed to escape from police custody and fled to Pretoria where he continued with his criminal activities.

He was convicted and handed an indeterminate prison sentence (no defined period) in the early 2000s for the rape, indecent assault and housebreaking charges against him.

According to legislation, Mahomed became eligible for re-sentencing after 15 years in 2016.

By then his Durban and Pretoria offences were merged and Magistrate Sharon Marks presided over the matter that was prosecuted by Advocate Val Melis.

After considering expert evidence, Marks labelled him a dangerous criminal once again and ordered that he be subjected to multiple sessions of counselling and psychotherapy before returning for a sentence review after four years.

However, Marks found in 2021 that Correctional Services did not facilitate the therapy sessions she ordered for Mahomed.

His dangerous criminal tag remained and Marks asked for him to be subjected to 30 sessions of intensive psychotherapy, handed him another indeterminate sentence and said that he could return after a year for another review.

That review, which began earlier this year with various witnesses providing evidence.

With Edwards' suggesting that Mahomed could be a candidate for day parole, a representative each from correctional services and the parole board were called to testify.

Buhle Mkhize, chairperson of the correctional supervision and parole board told the court on Thursday that for Mahomed to receive day parole he must receive a determinate sentence (definite length).

“He must be given a fixed term sentence, after he serves the minimum term, parole can be considered. That decision must come from the court,” said Mkhize.

Marks said the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit the court to pronounce a determinate sentence for dangerous criminals and acknowledged that the parole board’s “hands were tied” because of this.

Sukraj Lutchman, a senior correctional services officer, said offenders only become eligible for day parole at age 65 and having completed a minimum of 15 years of imprisonment.

“He (Mahomed) does not qualify because he is 54-years-old.”

Sukraj also stated that Mahomed needed to have a determinate sentence for parole consideration.

He explained that day parole for qualifying prisoners entailed that they have a good family support system, they are released for the duration of the day and are expected to return to prison by 3pm and report to a supervisor their activities for the day.

In response to Melis’ question, Sukraj told the court that Mahomed was not assessed for day parole because he did not meet the requirements.

Marks commended Sukraj for his diligence over many years in the matter and for the role he played in having Mahomed’s Durban and Pretoria offences merged into one matter.

She reiterated that Sukraj’s report stated that Mahomed’s risk of re-offending was “moderate to high”, and was consistent with the submissions made by most psychologists and psychiatrists, to which he agreed.

Lutchman told the court that Mahomed did not receive expert counselling sessions during the duration of the current application.

“There has to be an instruction from the court for Mahomed to receive therapy sessions.”

During Friday’s sitting Edwards emphasised that his client was not implicated in any “incidents” during his more than 23 years of incarceration and attended all his therapy sessions.

Edwards suggested that Mahomed’s sentence could be reassessed after a year of therapy, Melis countered that it should be a longer period.

The matter resumes later this month.