Zuma rape ruling questioned by judge: Report

LazyLion

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,595
Reaction score
10,237
Location
District 9
Former Constitutional Court judge Zak Jacoob has questioned the rape ruling involving President Jacob Zuma in 2006, saying he would have found him guilty, The Times reported on Friday.

"I have a serious difference of opinion... I had a serious problem with the Zuma judgment... If it were me, I would have set aside the judgment," he was quoted as saying.

"Trials and judges do not decide the truth... judges never know the truth."

Judges were human and their decisions were to an extent subjective, he reportedly said at the Arts of Human Rights workshop on Thursday.

Yacoob said he had a "serious problem" with Johannesburg High Court Judge Willem van der Merwe's ruling that Zuma was not guilty of raping the woman, identified as "Khwezi".

He believed the Zuma trial was not about finding the truth but a "story telling contest" between two opposing sides, with the judgment based on which side told the better story.

He said sometimes truth and justice were not on the same side.

Van der Merwe decided at the time that the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zuma intended to commit rape.

In his ruling, he questioned Khwezi's credibility.


Source : Sapa /mar/jk/ar
Date : 08 Aug 2014 10:18
 
I'm seeing the past will come back to haunt him. Will he pay more tax to silence the people or will he take a fall? And then? They would never let a cadre live in poverty. Will the tax payer pay for him and his >choose your word< till Jesus comes?
 
I hope the honourable member Malema sees this.
 
Attention seeking Mr former Judge. Zuma would have easily won on appeal, he may be guilty of other things this Zuma but rape in that case isn't one of them.
 
He doesn't say why he would have found him guilty? And, "sometimes truth and justice were not on the same side"? What is that supposed to mean in this context?

He was found not guilty for lack of evidence and because that chick had a history of crying rape that undermined her credibility. We obviously can't know the truth about what happened between two people but, that's kind of the point of why he couldn't be found guilty.

Jacoob is only proving that he should never have been appointed to the CC in my opinion.
 
R13... said:
Attention seeking Mr former Judge. Zuma would have easily won on appeal, he may be guilty of other things this Zuma but rape in that case isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Not likely at all actually. Nothing in the trial apart from the finding of the trial court of guilt would be a reason to entertain an appeal and absent grounds for an appeal the appellate court is slow to quash a conviction and impose its finding on the court a quo.

Zuma doesn't win appeals - as much as he tries all manner of clogging the appeal court he just generally appeals to delay and stall and hope to garner time for a "political solution" which means ****ing the system.

Of course you are also missing the fundamental point here about the notion of innocence and the establishment of guilt at law. On the whole I am satisfied that Justice van der Merwe delivered the ruling available to him on the case appearing before him - that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - and that there was a massive dis juncture from the State in presenting a critical component of the case which actually underlies the true malicious predatory character of Jacob Zuma. This ruling is correct however because Blackstone's formulation forms such an integral component of justice rather than because of establishing the truth.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Not likely at all actually. Nothing in the trial apart from the finding of the trial court of guilt would be a reason to entertain an appeal and absent grounds for an appeal the appellate court is slow to quash a conviction and impose its finding on the court a quo.

Zuma doesn't win appeals - as much as he tries all manner of clogging the appeal court he just generally appeals to delay and stall and hope to garner time for a "political solution" which means ****ing the system.

Of course you are also missing the fundamental point here about the notion of innocence and the establishment of guilt at law. On the whole I am satisfied that Justice van der Merwe delivered the ruling available to him on the case appearing before him - that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - and that there was a massive dis juncture from the State in presenting a critical component of the case which actually underlies the true malicious predatory character of Jacob Zuma. This ruling is correct however because Blackstone's formulation forms such an integral component of justice rather than because of establishing the truth.
Click to expand...

But do you really see how any judge could have found guilty on the evidence presented? I thought grounds for granting appeal are like where there is sufficient reason to think a different court can find different given the same evidence.
 
on the evidence presented another judge could easily have convicted and leave to appeal is determined on the prospects of another court reaching a different conclusion - so leave to appeal is not in my view in issue, and a conviction would therefore reasonably be subject to an appeal by three judges of appeal.
With the appeal the court would have to not only be satisfied that it reaches a different conclusion but that it has a basis to interfere with the trial court so if one of the three or even two of the three judges disagree they'd be disinclined absent finding a misdirection - and for a judge to convict they would have had to have directed themselves on some point of evidence or another and the appellate court would have to hold that that direction was a misdirection.

Take a look at a large number of the 3 judge criminal appeals where the lack of a misdirection on the part of the trial court results in a short judgment.
 
Nick333 said:
Well, he was quoted as saying he would have found him guilty and that he would have at the judgement aside in the first article.

Someone remind me though, didn't a previous case of her having accused someone of rape come up in the Zuma trial? Or am I thinking of something else entirely?
Click to expand...

I think two men came forward to testify of previous accusations of rape by the woman.
 
R13... said:
I think two men came forward to testify of previous accusations of rape by the woman.
Click to expand...

One of whom was found guilty in disciplinary proceedings by the seminary involved ...

O and it was four men who came forward and alleged that she had previously alleged that they had sexually assaulted her the defence didn't advance all of them and they all knew each other and Zuma ...
 
R13... said:
I think two men came forward to testify of previous accusations of rape by the woman.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember something like that. I don't remember her sexual history being the issue so much as the previous accusations she'd made.

Whatever Yacoob did say he's clearly got an agenda that is not pro Zuma. I don't like him either but that rape trial smelled a lot like a smear campaign.
 
OGroteKoning said:
Aaah ... so the brown envelope arrived late ...
Click to expand...
nope the press not quoting judges correctly and depending on sound bites

Respectively I disagree with Yacoob on this point, the sexual history of the complainant is as a rule irrelevant but if indicative of predatory conduct on the part of the accused becomes highly relevant.
 
Paul Hjul said:
nope the press not quoting judges correctly and depending on sound bites

Respectively I disagree with Yacoob on this point, the sexual history of the complainant is as a rule irrelevant but if indicative of predatory conduct on the part of the accused becomes highly relevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... this is probably what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X