A man arrested for the murder of Mpumalanga deputy sheriff Michelle Jones has lost his appeal against the court’s decision to deny him bail.
Henry Dlamini is alleged to have shot Jones and her partner Julio Cohen two days after his grandmother’s house, which they had bought, was registered in their names. Her death happened on the day she was granted a protection order against him.
The Mpumalanga high court said that Jones was very excited about the purchase and on October 18 last year had gone to look at her new home in Mbombela (Nelspruit).
“The excitement would not be fulfilling enough unless she was in the company of her paraplegic partner. After all, they both signed the offer to purchase. But they were ill-prepared for the hostility meted out by the man who claimed the house belonged to his grandmother. He told them he would hurt anyone who buys that house. He said that he was prepared to do life in prison for that,” the court said, adding that Dlamini had left his possessions in the house.
Jones asked him to remove them so she could move in, prompting Dlamini to threaten her again.
“The threats were so serious that the man who was hired to change the locks, abandoned his work and fled for his life. Ms Jones was so frightened she also thought of fleeing. She only decided against it because that would mean leaving her paraplegic partner exposed to harm as he could not run. Luckily, this man did not harm them, at least for that day,” the court said.
Dlamini left the property, and Jones reported the threats to the police, who advised her to apply for a protection order. On October 20 she was granted a protection order by the Mbombela magistrate’s court, issued in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act.
“That order was to be served on the man who threatened to kill her for buying his grandmother’s house. That man is Henry Dlamini — the appellant in this case. Sadly, Ms Jones did not live to have the protection order served on the man who terrorised her and her partner,” the court said.
Later that day Jones and Cohen were sitting in her car, parked at a shopping centre in Mbombela. They were waiting for a friend who had gone inside to do some shopping. As the friend was returning he saw a man firing shots into the car.
“Although Ms Jones was fatally injured, she survived long enough to help the police in their investigations by identifying the assailant before she succumbed to her injuries in hospital. Her partner, Mr Cohen survived. He also identified the appellant as the man who shot and injured him and killed the deceased.”
He denied the allegations against him. He, however, chose to remain silent when it comes to the basis of his defence.
— Mpumalanga high court
Five days after the murder Dlamini was arrested and applied for bail. The state argued that the crime fell under schedule five and that he should remain in custody until his trial was over. It was argued that he should not be granted bail unless he could provide substantial and compelling reasons why he deserved to be allowed to go free.
The defence argued that the court had erred in refusing to grant Dlamini bail and that it was in the interests of justice to permit his release. He had demonstrated that he would attend court, would not skip bail and would not interfere with evidence.
It was argued that the court had further erred by placing too much emphasis on the strength of the state’s case and submissions that if released on bail, the community might harm Dlamini, and that there would be “fights and unrests between the community and the appellant”.
The court was told that Dlamini was 34, married and the father of two children. He had two homes — one of them being the home registered in his grandmother’s name which he grew up in. He was self-employed as the driver of a metered taxi owner. He claimed to have no previous convictions.
“He denied the allegations against him. He, however, chose to remain silent when it comes to the basis of his defence,” the court noted, adding that the investigating officer had picked up a previous assault charge against Dlamini and a theft case for which he had paid an admission of guilt fine.
“If the appellant could not be truthful about his past, the court a quo found it very concerning as to how truthful he can be about the future undertakings he made in his affidavit.”
The investigating officer testified that he had initially confiscated Dlamini’s cellphone after arresting him but returned it to him when he was transferred from the police station to prison. Dlamini had then used it to make threatening calls to the officer.
“This evidence was not disputed by the appellant in cross-examination of the investigating officer,” the court held.
It was also noted that the court had been “full to capacity” on each of Dlamini’s appearances, and had to be cleared “because members of the public were agitated and impatient with the appellant and the court’s processes”. Dlamini had also claimed that someone had given a knife to another inmate and asked him to stab Dlamini. The knife had been found and confiscated by a court orderly.
“With all the above, I am unable to find any misdirection on the part of the court ... and find that the appellant has failed to show on balance of probabilities, that the interests of justice permit his release on bail,” the court said.
“The following order is made: the appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.”
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.