Defence considers bail application for Anton Bouwer amid trial delays

Advocate Hugo van der Westhuizen, the defence attorney representing Anton Bouwer, indicated he considered applying for relief under Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act to secure bail for his client.

This legal provision empowers the court to intervene in cases of unreasonable delays in proceedings.

Van der Westhuizen argued the prolonged nature of the case infringed on his client’s right to a fair and speedy trial.

The Pomona businessman appeared before the Gauteng High Court, sitting in the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court again on March 27.

He stands accused of killing his parents, Robert (78) and Bettie (73), at their Bredell home before going to his home in Fairleads and fatally shooting his stepdaughter, Natasha (23) and domestic worker, Elizabeth Mahlangu (56), on January 22, 2023. His wife, Adélle (43), was also shot and airlifted to the hospital and survived the shooting.

Van der Westhuizen addressed the court following remarks by State prosecutor Carla Britz, who said as the investigation team finalised the bulk of the investigation, they were still awaiting Toyota SA to provide details regarding the movement of the Toyota Hilux vehicle Bouwer was allegedly driving on the day of the incident.

She added a DNA report, a ballistic report on one of the firearms and a blood spatter analysis are still outstanding.

Britz noted the investigating officer was still attending to the DNA and ballistic reports, however, they were uncertain when they would receive the information from Toyota SA.

Van der Westhuizen said he had repeatedly enquired about why these reports remained outstanding while the matter was still before the Kempton Park Magistrates’ Court.

He said he previously raised concerns with the senior prosecutor about the incomplete investigations. He then received a letter from the control prosecutor, highlighting certain aspects of the case and explaining the reasons for further postponements.

He said the letter was submitted as an exhibit and was told that the State was investigating cases from 2011, 2023, and 2024.

Also Read: Bouwer murder case moves to High Court

He explained he was further told the State intended to re-evaluate DNA evidence from the 2011 case, and without the outstanding reports, they could not prepare an indictment.

Given the repeated postponements, the court warned that a Section 342A enquiry would be held if the State was not ready.

However, the State guaranteed the court the indictment’s completion by February, along with the investigations.

“The indictment was complete on February 7, implying that the State received the outstanding evidence. This matter should have been ready for pre-trial, not for further investigation. At the previous court appearance, I was informed the matter would be ready to proceed to pre-trial, yet now the investigations are still incomplete,” Van der Westhuizen said.

He suggested the indictment may have been prepared to avoid the regional court’s enquiry into the delays, adding this disregarded the rights of the accused.

He clarified he was not suggesting the matter be struck from the roll. Instead, he urged the court to consider the objective circumstances and prejudice suffered by his client, while also considering the option of granting bail under strict conditions.

In response, Britz stated the letter submitted as an exhibit was not intended to mislead anyone. She said, according to the legal representative of the victim in count five, the victim feared for her life and had to move constantly.

“Despite the accused being in custody, she claims he still tracks her movements. The accused resides on the same premises as his children, and after shooting their sibling, they are also afraid of him,” Britz said.

The State prosecutor affirmed they would oppose any bail application and argued under these circumstances, the court should not invoke Section 342A.

Presiding over the matter, Judge Cassim Moosa acknowledged the defence’s frustration and noted he appreciated Van der Westhuizen raising his concerns before the court.

He said the avenue remains open and Van der Westhuizen could indicate whether they wish to apply for bail.

However, he requested the investigating officer to be present at the next court session to provide clarity on the outstanding reports.

This, he said, would enable the court to make an informed decision on the way forward.

It was further revealed in court that the State has prima facie evidence against the accused.

The matter has been postponed to April 15 for case management.

Also Read: Bouwer case: State claims witnesses are being intimidated