The end of Fred van der Vyver's battle against the State has disappointed the investigative author who followed it.
|||Cape Town - The end of Fred van der Vyver’s long legal battle against the State has been sharply criticised by the investigative author who has followed it.
Earlier this week the Constitutional Court denied Van der Vyver – who was acquitted of murder following the death of his girlfriend, Matie post-graduate student Inge Lotz – leave to appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling overturning a Western Cape High Court finding that the minister of police was liable to pay him damages for malicious prosecution.
Antony Altbeker, author of Fruit of a Poisoned Tree, told the Cape Argus: “I think the decision is disappointing. The decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal – which Fred was appealing against – was perverse. It agreed certain police officers acted with malice, knowingly presenting evidence that was likely to result in the prosecution of an innocent man, but say that those malicious acts did not cause the prosecution.
“By the time the prosecution began, the prosecutors knew that the police evidence was deeply flawed.
“We have had three courts agree that Fred was innocent and two courts agree that the actions of at least some of the police officers were malicious and deliberate – the other court did not rule on this and didn’t need to – but the Supreme Court of Appeal is saying that that’s just too bad.
“Not only must Fred cover all the costs of a prosecution that was based, at least in large part, on malice, but he must now pay the legal costs police incurred when he tried to sue them.
“I think it’s bizarre.”
Lotz was bludgeoned and stabbed to death in her Stellenbosch flat on March 16, 2005. She was 22. Van der Vyver, who was then an actuarial assistant at old Mutual, emerged as the police’s prime suspect. In the murder trial, Judge Deon van Zyl rejected the State’s case and acquitted Van der Vyver on November 29, 2007. No one else has been charged.
Van der Vyver sued the minister of police for R46 million in damages for malicious prosecution.
In his ruling in this civil case, Judge Anton Veldhuizen said the decision to prosecute had been based on the opinion of an expert involved in the investigation, and this was “not worth the paper it was written on”. Without this opinion, the prosecuting authorities would have realised there was no valid case. He was satisfied the prosecution should not have taken place, and the ministry was liable for damages.
The ministry appealed and won in the Supreme Court of Appeal, which found Van der Vyver had failed to prove malicious intent on the part of all the investigating police officers.
It set aside the ruling with costs.
Van der Vyver’s legal team applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal. On Tuesday, it said it had concluded that the application “be dismissed as it bears no prospects of success.There is no order as to costs”.
Van der Vyver’s advocate, Dup de Bruyn, said neither he nor the Van der Vyver family had any comment. Professor Jan Lotz, Inge’s father, said he preferred not to comment.
Cape Argus