News24

No mercy for child porn suspect

2011-10-25 22:31

Pretoria - A Pretoria man who allegedly posed as "Griet van Zyl" to buy overseas child pornography via the internet, will have to face the consequences of his deeds.

This was after Judge Elias Matojane turned down his application in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to set aside search and seizure warrants and the confiscation of computer equipment, videos and photographs containing child pornography at his house in December 2007.

Judge Matojane also turned down his application to declare the articles confiscated by the police inadmissible as evidence in his criminal prosecution.

The man from Wonderboom South has been charged with the possession of child pornography. His trial was put on hold in 2009 when he launched a High Court application.

He may not be identified until he has pleaded to the charges.

The man claimed in papers before the High Court the police who requested the warrants, and the magistrate who issued them in 2006 and 2007, had no reasonable grounds for believing he was in possession of child pornography. He said the warrants violated his right to privacy.

Bank transactions

He disputed suspicious bank transactions linking him to the purchase of child pornography on the internet and said he was in fact refunded by his bank when he queried the transactions.

He said it was clear the name "Griet van Zyl" and the address used for the transactions in 2003 were false and that there could therefore not have been any information on which the warrants could have been issued.

Judge Matojane said it was clear that subsequent to the first search and seizure warrant, which was cancelled, new information came to light via investigators at the American embassy.

According to the new information, an agent in America had reported that one Griet van Zyl made contact with him and that discussions had taken place in respect of the manufacturing of child pornography. The information indicated Griet van Zyl was the same person as the applicant.

The judge said the information before the magistrate showed the applicant was involved with child pornography. The magistrate's belief that the material would be found at his house was vindicated.

The application was dismissed with costs.

Comments
  • Wouter - 2011-10-26 00:19

    The guy's guilt or innocence aside, why has it taken 4 years to start this case? Insanity!

      Right - 2011-10-26 08:28

      No secret where he is from and again involving children!

  • Daniel - 2011-10-26 08:37

    Send him to prison and we can make a movie that, then see how he feels !!

  • Sue-Ellen - 2011-10-26 10:38

    Bring back the death penalty for sick S.O.B's like this! But make him die a very painful death!

  • therealunskinny - 2011-10-26 11:52

    Kill or castrate.

  • Marius - 2011-10-26 12:18

    Wait, hang on a bit here. It is child pornography, not child molesting. There is a huge difference. The first involves only pictures and video's. It involves having the material in your possession, that's all. That is the issue here.

      Karen - 2011-10-26 12:57

      you're kidding right!! and the child in the video/picture is not being molested?????

      gainesrlg - 2011-10-26 13:03

      You say he is 'only' having the photos and videos - but it means he is supporting the sick b@st@rds who take the pictures and film the videos - THAT involves real children. So please think before you post a comment like this. Innocent children are still being raped and forced to have sex in the pictures and movies, surely you can't be ignorant enough to not realise that??

      Octarin - 2011-10-26 13:41

      Hey you there smug, you wanna justify some of the stuff in your own closet, pedo? Huh, is that it? Cause, newsflash, for the rest of us, BOTH are as abhorrent.

  • TheJaydedKing - 2012-03-17 20:34

    Big up to the magistrate. Never to late to throw these tossers to the sharks

  • pages:
  • 1