JUDICIAL ABUSE
HIGH COURT SOUTH AFRICA - WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION
REPORTED JUDGMENT CASE 22263/02
LIONEL GREENBERG v MARGARET GOUWS & MINISTER OF SAFTETY & SECURITY.
This is one of 14 cases that I have instituted against the Minister of Safety & Security. I was arrested by then police women Margaret Gouws who worked at the Edenvale Police Station. She resigned from the police service in 2008. The complainant was Felicia Greenberg who is my former wife.
I was charged by Felicia for contempt of court because my son went on holiday in July 2000 with me and he had not returned home on a particular day. What is amazing is that my son went on holiday with me with her consent. This was one of the first holidays with my son alone as I had just left the marriage.
Felicia Greenberg (Herman) was born in Klerksdorp South Africa. Not that there should be any confusion her parents are Ivan Herman and Natalie Herman. In May 2000 I left Felicia - briefly she first turned my children against me. This phenomenon is known as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). As part of the process to alienate my children from me she applied to the court for domestic violence interdict. This was a method she and many women use to keep their children away from the father.
She subsequently falsely charged me for fraud, theft, kidnapping and domestic violence. I knew all her charges were empty and false however I had a long haul to vindicate myself. As the saying goes hell hath no fury like a women scorn. That is an under-statement to say the least.
The false charges lead me to be arrested by a policeman Margaret Gouws on 3 occasions. In this article I have only dealt with one of 67 criminal charges against me. I will keep you very entertained to a point of disbelief just how crazy and hostile Felicia and her police friends became.
In 2002 I issued 9 summonses against the Minister of Safety & Security. After being frustrated by the State Attorney and their client Director Meyer who is the Chief Legal officer of the South Africa Police Service in Johannesburg my case got to court. (I will deal with the deceit of Gouws and Felicia in a different article)
In August 2007 the court ruled in my favour and I succeeded in my case against Gouws and the Minister of Safety and Security. The court ordered that the Minister must pay me damages for the unlawful arrested and my legal fees. This amounts to about R150, 000 - I am still waiting for my award to be paid as the Minister of Safety & Security on the instruction of their Advocate Sibuyi who in his wisdom appealed the decision of the court.
The saga gets more interesting as I will go into the deceit of a Advocate H Sibuyi and how he manipulated and tampered with the polices evidence – he should be struck off the roll of advocates
Please watch this blog as I elaborate on this long and intertwined and unbelievable riveting saga of the abuse of crooked policemen and women, a dishonest Advocate Sibuyi that the Minister of Safety and Security has entrusted to defend them, and an obsessed women that I have best described as a habitual and pathological liar who the police and prosecutors trusted as being and "honest" complainant.
REPORTED JUDGMENT CASE 22263/02
LIONEL GREENBERG v MARGARET GOUWS & MINISTER OF SAFTETY & SECURITY.
This is one of 14 cases that I have instituted against the Minister of Safety & Security. I was arrested by then police women Margaret Gouws who worked at the Edenvale Police Station. She resigned from the police service in 2008. The complainant was Felicia Greenberg who is my former wife.
I was charged by Felicia for contempt of court because my son went on holiday in July 2000 with me and he had not returned home on a particular day. What is amazing is that my son went on holiday with me with her consent. This was one of the first holidays with my son alone as I had just left the marriage.
Felicia Greenberg (Herman) was born in Klerksdorp South Africa. Not that there should be any confusion her parents are Ivan Herman and Natalie Herman. In May 2000 I left Felicia - briefly she first turned my children against me. This phenomenon is known as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). As part of the process to alienate my children from me she applied to the court for domestic violence interdict. This was a method she and many women use to keep their children away from the father.
She subsequently falsely charged me for fraud, theft, kidnapping and domestic violence. I knew all her charges were empty and false however I had a long haul to vindicate myself. As the saying goes hell hath no fury like a women scorn. That is an under-statement to say the least.
The false charges lead me to be arrested by a policeman Margaret Gouws on 3 occasions. In this article I have only dealt with one of 67 criminal charges against me. I will keep you very entertained to a point of disbelief just how crazy and hostile Felicia and her police friends became.
In 2002 I issued 9 summonses against the Minister of Safety & Security. After being frustrated by the State Attorney and their client Director Meyer who is the Chief Legal officer of the South Africa Police Service in Johannesburg my case got to court. (I will deal with the deceit of Gouws and Felicia in a different article)
In August 2007 the court ruled in my favour and I succeeded in my case against Gouws and the Minister of Safety and Security. The court ordered that the Minister must pay me damages for the unlawful arrested and my legal fees. This amounts to about R150, 000 - I am still waiting for my award to be paid as the Minister of Safety & Security on the instruction of their Advocate Sibuyi who in his wisdom appealed the decision of the court.
The saga gets more interesting as I will go into the deceit of a Advocate H Sibuyi and how he manipulated and tampered with the polices evidence – he should be struck off the roll of advocates
Please watch this blog as I elaborate on this long and intertwined and unbelievable riveting saga of the abuse of crooked policemen and women, a dishonest Advocate Sibuyi that the Minister of Safety and Security has entrusted to defend them, and an obsessed women that I have best described as a habitual and pathological liar who the police and prosecutors trusted as being and "honest" complainant.
Magistrates Court
IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF GERMISTON
HELD AT GERMISTON
CASE NUMBER 6165/2008
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
GREENBERG, LIONEL MERVIN.............................PLAINTIFF
and
MAILA, RW ........................................................1st DEFENDANT
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY................2nd DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
l. The presiding officer in this matter is permanently appointed for the district of Johannesburg. The officer was specifically appointed to act in this matter as his colleagues in Germiston and previously dealt with the plaintiff in someway or the other. This matter was heard on 14/05/2009.
2. The plaintiff claimed damages arising from his arrest and detention pursuant to a warrant issued out of the Germiston Magistrates Court in terms of the Domestic Violence Act 11 6 of 1998.
3. The Plaintiff was represented by Advocate M .D. Saladino. The defendant's were represented by Advocate T .P. Bokako (F) having been duly instructed by the State Attorney Mr. H.T Ngobeni. The State Attorney was also present during proceedings.
4. The defendants brought an application for a postponement and asked that costs be reserved. The details of the argument are already part of the record and the court will not repeat same. The defendant's application for a postponement was refused.
5. After the postponement the defendants indicated that the refusal of the postponement was an irregular process and they intended taking the matter on review. It is at this stage that the defendant's advocate indicated that her instructions are to withdraw as legal representative. She further mentioned that the State Attorney is withdrawing as attorney of record for the 1st and 2nd defendants. The defendant's advocate in the presence of the State Attorney Mr. H.T. Ngobeni reconciled themselves to the implications of this decision. This consequently left the 1st defendants being 'In person' and representing himself with the second defendant now being unrepresented and absent from the proceedings. The 2nd defendant not being a natural person. It is at this stage that the plaintiff elected to withdraw his action against the 1st defendant with each party to pay its own costs. The plaintiff was now only proceeding against the 2nd defendant.
6. The plaintiff elected to proceed on a default basis and applied for judgment in terms of Rule 32 of Act 32 of 1944. The merits of the claim were now regarded as unchallenged. The plaintiff testified in the quantification of his claim.
7. The plaintiff outlined that he was almost 50 years old and operated a 'CD' duplication business. He also specialized in divorce mediation. He had a technical certificate and completed his T1 and T2 courses at the University of South Africa. The plaintiff has been undergoing 'chemotherapy' since December 2005. He currently has one treatment of 'chemotherapy' left. The plaintiff was arrested on 23rd of May 2007 at around 8h30. It was a Jewish holiday. The 1st defendant was in the company of 4 other police officers. The plaintiff was the only person at his home at the time of his arrest.
8. Other people at the Edenvale Court knew him as he was involved in numerous litigations. These people saw him in court. The plaintiff felt that he should have only been arrested if there was going to be 'imminent harm' to the complainant. He felt that this was not the case here. The plaintiff was divorced since February 2001. Since the year 2000 he has been arrested about 14 times. There have been numerous criminal charges against him. His ex-brother-in-law and father-in-law also opened criminal charges against him. The plaintiff explained that the police officer did not have discretion in respect of a warrant issued in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. However a police officer had a discretion with regard to a warrant issued in terms of the Domestic Violence Act.
9. The plaintiff explained that he was involved in the 'Jewish Male Choir'. He felt that his reputation was diminished. He earned an annual income of about Rl60 000-00. The 1st defendant did not want to discuss this matter with the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied formally for bail. This was heard about 14h30 in the afternoon. Bail was opposed. The plaintiff was granted bail but he was unable to pay the bail as the cash office was closed. He was moved to Boksburg Prison. The conditions at prison were 'filthy'. The plaintiff felt upset and humiliated. There were about 30 people in the cells and some 'smoked'. He received food late in the afternoon. He received a piece of bread with some peanut butter. He received no tea only water. There was no toilet paper or soap.
10. The plaintiff felt that he was not a big person or aggressive. He could however 'look after' himself in the cells. In the 'hospital section' most of the inmates were not aggressive. He had no cell phone or telephone. He felt isolated. He felt that at the time of his arrest the 1st defendant did not apply his mind. He was arrested 19 days after the incident with the complainant. At Edenvale police station the plaintiff knew people who also greeted him. The plaintiff felt that he claimed R75 000-00 and also legal fees regarding his 19 court appearances in the criminal court. The fees came to about R60 000-00. That concluded the plaintiffs case on the merits. The plaintiffs representative then addressed court.
11. The court notes that the plaintiff is a single witness. His evidence is taken with a degree of caution. The plaintiff came across as a good witness. This being an application for default judgment in terms of Rule 32 of Act 32 of 1994 his evidence was unchallenged. The court is obliged to accept his evidence. The court has however noted that the plaintiff has not called any further witnesses to corroborate or strengthen its case on the quantum.
12. The court finds the following facts to have been proved:
a) The plaintiff was arrested on 23/05/2007 with a warrant issued in terms of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998.
b) The incident of the complaint occurred on 04/05/2007. The complainant deposed to her complaint on 10/05/2007. The 1st defendant arrested the plaintiff on 23/05/2007.
c) The 1st defendant unlawfully arrested the plaintiff. He did not exercise his discretion to arrest properly. He had the option of handing the plaintiff a notice to appear in court. There was no reason for the I't defendant to believe that the complainant was in any imminent harm. The personal circumstances of the plaintiff were also well known between the parties. The defendant has further not discharged its onus of showing that the arrest was in fact 'lawful'.
d) The conduct of the Senior Public Prosecutor, Linda Lamprecht as evidenced by the note to the 1st defendant marked exhibit '3', did not preclude the lst defendant from acting in the manner expected of him. The court accepts that he may have been influenced by her 'instruction'; however the ultimate discretion in arresting the plaintiff was his.
e) The court finds that it is irrelevant whether it was the Senior Public Prosecutor or the police officer who made the decision to arrest. Both are acting in furtherance of the interests of the State. For the purposes of the plaintiffs casei t is sufficient that the court has determined the arrest to be unlawful. There is only one arrest and accordingly only one cause of action.
f) The conduct of the Senior Public Prosecutor amounts to a certain degree of 'malice' on the part of the 'State'. Once the warrant was issued and sent to the police. there was no need for the prosecutor to give such a restrictive directive to the 1st defendant. This can be regarded as an abuse of power by the Senior State Prosecutor. She should have provided the arresting officer with further reasons for her 'instruction'. In so doing the 1st defendant could have comet o his own conclusion that arrest was warranted.
g) In as much as the 1st defendant arrived at the plaintiffs residence with 4 other officers, there is no indication that the plaintiff was treated badly or intimidated by them. No negative inference can be drawn by this.
h) The plaintiff was taken to court on the same day of his arrest. The court notes that the State opposed bail in this matter. This is the prerogative of the State. They were entitled to do so. A bail application was held and the plaintiff was granted bail. There is nothing strange in this process save to say that it very often happens that opposed bail applications are unable to be heard on the first court appearance due to congested court rolls. This was not the case in this matter. Although it cannot be said that the prosecutor dealing with the matter in court acted with malice in initially opposing bail. The court finds it strange that based on the information at hand that bail would be opposed. The court notes that with reference to exhibit '9' the court prosecutor eventually did not oppose bail.
i) The plaintiff was unable to pay bail immediately. The court has not been placed with sufficient information in this regard save to say that the cash office was closed. The plaintiff has failed to highlight as to whether the 'office' was only closed to him or for the general public by this time. The plaintiff has not shown that the delay in the hearing of the bail application was done with any malice and had the resultant effect of preventing the plaintiff from paying his bail on time. The plaintiff has further failed to show why bail was not paid at the prison
j) The court accepts that the plaintiff was deprived of his liberty for at least one day. He further endured poor condition while in the custody of the police and prison.
k) The court has noted the plaintiffs status within the Jewish community and medical condition at the time of his arrest.
l) The court got the impression that the plaintiff was familiar with court and police procedures. He knew their environment and was well known at the police station and at the courts building. It is for this reason that people noticed him and also greeted him. One will ordinarily experience a sense of loss to ones dignity if seen in the custody of the police. The court got the impression that this was not the case with the plaintiff. He was in familiar ground and was not uncomfortable seeing people he knew. They in fact greeted him. The court however accepts that the plaintiff experienced loss to his dignity but to a diminished extent.
m) The court has noted that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action on the papers for legal fees. It was surprising to hear that a substantial claim for legal fees as incorporated in the amount claimed. The court disregards this portion of the plaintiffs evidence.
13. The court has further considered the plaintiffs argument and reference to past awards relating to similar 'damages claims'.
14. In the totality of the evidence the court grants judgment in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Rule 32 of Act 32 of 1944 as follows:
I) Payment of the sum of R50 000-00;
II) Interest on the amount of R50 000-00 at the rate of 15.5% from 12/05/2009 to date of payment;
III) Costs to be taxed.
Dated at Germiston this 12th day of June 2009.
(SGD)
N. M KARIKAN
ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE
JOHANNESBURG/GERMISTON
The writer has attempted to provide the judgment as accurately as possible. Hardcopy available by fax or PDF
