Former tennis star Bob Hewitt's appeal dismissed

The 76-year-old former doubles champion had been convicted on two counts of rape and one of sexual assault in March last year, after abusing three girls while he was their tennis coach in the 1980’s and 90’s.

The bench of three appeal court judges, who only considered the appropriateness of his sentence and not his conviction, began their judgement by commenting on how long it had taken for Hewitt to be brought to book.

“It would take the long arm of the law three decades to catch the appellant as he was only convicted in March 2015 at the age of 75 years.”

Hewitt was convicted on two counts for the rape of two girls aged 12 and 13 years and one count of indecent assault of a 17 year old girl. The rape offences were committed in the early 1980s and the indecent assault in 1994.

He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of each of the rape counts and two years’ imprisonment for indecent assault. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two years of each of the rape sentences were suspended for a period of two years on condition that the appellant pays a sum of R100,000 to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to be used in its campaign against the abuse of women and children. He was therefore sentenced to undergo an effective period of six years’ imprisonment.

The appeal judges briefly sketched the background against which Hewitt had committed his crimes.

“He took his chances with the complainants, who were his tennis students, mainly during coaching sessions. He would make lewd comments to the children, peek under their skirts, rub his erect penis against them, fondle their breasts and stick his tongue in their mouths and expose his naked body to them. He wrote love letters to the second complainant whom he also forced to perform oral sex on him and proceeded to rape during a tennis tournament at the Sun City Hotel in Rustenburg,” the judgment read.

The appeal judgement then sets out the circumstances that had led to Hewitt evading justice until 2015.

“He raped the first complainant at the premises of a tennis club house in Boksburg on an afternoon scheduled for a tennis lesson. Unfortunately when she reported the incident to her mother, with whom she had a bad relationship, the latter dismissed it out of hand and that was the end of the matter.

The second complainant had laid a charge with the police in Johannesburg. The Attorney General at the time however took the view that the case fell outside his jurisdiction as the alleged offence was committed in the former Republic of Bophuthatswana. Her lawyers also felt that the girl would not be able to withstand cross-examination, and the matter was aborted.

The third complainant had endured molestation over a number of years until she eventually confided in her mother. No charge was laid however, as her family’s lawyer advised them that the offence would be “difficult to prove in court.”

After his conviction, Hewitt’s legal team led evidence about his failing health, the devastating effect of the trial on his family’s social life, the fact that he was a first offender, and a family man married for 50 years, in an attempt to get his sentence reduced.

Despite these factors, the trial court had found that “a non-custodial sentence would not serve the interests of justice in the circumstances”. The court however granted Hewitt leave to appeal his sentence before the Supreme Court of Appeal. In their submissions before this court, his legal team contended that the trial court “overemphasized the seriousness of the offences at the expense of the appellant’s personal circumstances having regard to his advanced age and ill health and that he ‘only vaginally penetrated the (rape) complainants once’ and has not repeated the offences.”

The Supreme Court of Appeal pointed out in its judgement that it would only impose a different sentence if it was satisfied that “the trial court committed a misdirection of such a nature, degree and seriousness that shows that it did not exercise its sentencing discretion at all or exercised it improperly or unreasonably when imposing it.”

The appeal judges then remarked on how South African courts have repeatedly stressed society’s abhorrence of sexual offences and the devastating effect they had on victims and society itself. They went on to say that the rape of a child, usually committed by those who believe they can get away with it and often do, was far more horrendous, and that society demanded the imposition of harsh sentences in these cases.

The court finds that the trial judge had given due consideration to the appellant’s personal circumstances particularly his advanced age, ill-health and the extraordinary lapse of time between the commission of the offences and the trial.

The court agreed that there were indeed mitigating factors, but said there had been serious aggravating factors too.

“The appellant, ironically a father of a young girl himself at the material time, exploited the complainants’ innocence and youth and forced them to submit to his wicked desires. He abused his position of authority and responsibility towards them and also abused the trust that their parents had placed in him when they put their young children in his care. Quite apart from the immediate physical and psychological trauma which the complainants suffered from the offences, there is also the lasting and devastating effect which the offences have had on their lives and their families.”

Hewitt’s victims have suffered severe depression and anxiety, struggled to maintain intimate relationships with men throughout their adult lives and had abandoned tennis altogether because of the sport’s link to the offences.

As to whether Hewitt’s fall from grace had been sufficient punishment, the court found that this submission overlooked the basic tenets of the Constitution, which decrees equality before the law. “The appellant’s erstwhile celebrated status does not therefore earn him a special sentence,” read the judgment.

The court said Hewitt’s age did not bar him from a sentence of imprisonment and that his perceived lack of remorse counted against him.

Appeal court judge Mandisa Maya, who wrote the judgement, concluded by saying: “In my view, the sentences fit the criminal and the crime and fairly balance the competing interests. Although the element of rehabilitation bears little relevance here because of the appellant’s age, the sentences would still serve the other important purposes of sentence, i.e. deterrence and retribution. This court therefore has no right to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

Judges Zukisa Tshiqi and Willie Seriti concurred. - ANA