Killer taxi driver's bail reinstated

2011-12-20 13:23

Cape Town - Taxi driver Jacob Humphreys, who was found guilty of murdering 10 children, had his bail reinstated by the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday.

Humphreys' advocate Johann Engelbrecht said Judge Siraj Desai reinstated the R20,000 bail on Tuesday morning.

"Judge Desai extended his bail, ending the hearing of the application for leave to appeal as against the order of Judge Henney," Engelbrecht said.

Humphreys was taking the children to school on August 25 last year when he stopped at the Buttskop level crossing in Blackheath, overtook a row of cars, ignored safety signals and proceeded over the tracks. A train hit the taxi and 10 of the children were killed. Four children were seriously injured.

Western Cape High Court Judge Robert Henney also found Humphreys, 55, guilty on four charges of attempted murder.

He is to be sentenced on February 20 and 21.

  • Grant - 2011-12-20 13:26

    This wrong!

      NrGx - 2011-12-20 13:55

      so wrong - our justice system is in shambles. spill your drink NEAR the president = R10 000 fine. KILL TEN children = R20 000 bail. SICK! SICK! SICK!

      John - 2011-12-20 15:40

      Who are the morons giving the thumbs down here? Do you realy want this killer out on bail driving around over Christmas?

  • Bardy - 2011-12-20 13:27

    This is INSANE!!!! The murderers are running free on our streets! Bring the DA into power FFS!!!!

      Smanga Zwane - 2011-12-20 13:34

      DA into power? Look at where the judgement was made? The republic of the DA so don't come here with that tendency... Btw... The DA will have to rig the elections in order to get into power....

      Bardy - 2011-12-20 13:43

      It might have been in the Western Cape but the courts of this country are still under ANC rule you idiot! Your president is much too lenient on criminals! Just look at how corrupt the police and correctional service people are!

      stoute.babuseng - 2011-12-20 13:45

      judging from your name Smanga you surely from Durban stop smoking that wonga stuff then come and comment here, do you have any prove for your statement?

      Smanga Zwane - 2011-12-20 13:48

      Hey Bardy... You are the big idiot. So you are implying that the DA would interfere with courts decisions... What an idiot.

      Smanga Zwane - 2011-12-20 13:51

      Stoute unyoko obhema i whoonga...

      NrGx - 2011-12-20 13:51

      @smanga - THAT TENDENCY??? like your "tendency" to be an idiot that has NO SYMPATHY to the families of those children. Would you scream your racist ideals if it was your child? Please man, get rid of that chip on your shoulder and start living in reality like the rest of us

      Ben - 2011-12-20 13:52

      Smanga you are correct.I agree. The circus has been very entertaining so why would we now give up our ring-side seats.

      Bardy - 2011-12-20 13:52

      @ Smanga Zwane - The laws of this country are set by the governing party. Which means that the courts will have to lay down sentences by what the ANC thinks proper punishment for crimes. And stricter laws for criminals will mean that scum like this taxi driver will not be able to get bail! I am not for the old government in any way, but back then you will never have heard of senseless decisions like this!

      Smanga Zwane - 2011-12-20 13:55

      NrGx my comment isn't about lack of sympathy... Its about Bardy politicizing the issue. . . This isn't about the Bardy DA. And yes, the driver should not be let out and must rot in jail

      NrGx - 2011-12-20 14:10

      @smanga...."The DA will have to rig the elections in order to get into power.... " who is politicizing the issue? You have not made ONE comment on the issue at hand until now! this is exactly the train of thought you constently spew and IT IS RACIST! (didnt see you deny that) we dont care who is in government as long as THEY GOVERN. the that your heroes (im assuming) condonr this sort of verdict (simply by not doing anything, as they do) sets a precident that will continue.

  • Jason - 2011-12-20 13:33

    Good Bye... Cannot believe how wrong this ruling is.. 10 kids = R20 000.00 Bail does not make sense.

  • adrian.berghoff - 2011-12-20 13:34

    Is this some kind of joke? How can this be justified? Leave him to rot already.

  • Max - 2011-12-20 13:35

    If one of those children were mine, I would have pleaded with the judge to extend his bail......

      Max - 2011-12-20 14:37

      Two wrong assumptions on your side, no one is going to get caught and there is no definition for a person's color in our constitution.

  • Smanga Zwane - 2011-12-20 13:36

    Cry, the beloved children.

  • vangiz - 2011-12-20 13:38

    Shocking! He should stay in jail! The families of the children he killed cannot spend xmas with their kids, why should be allowed too??!! Not cool at all!

  • Mart - 2011-12-20 13:38

    The message from the judiciary, which works with the boundaries set by government, is loud and clear....'dont warry what you've done, we will make absolutely sure that you are well looked after and that we will not in any way infringe on your freedom just in case your appeal succeeds.' OK if that's the game...let him out, hope he gets taken out !

  • Paul - 2011-12-20 13:39

    This is wrong on so many levels that it will take too long to comment on!!

  • Andre - 2011-12-20 13:41

    Let him back into the community, there will be swift justice there!

      NrGx - 2011-12-20 14:14

      yeah, this is (unfortunately) exactly what is going to be needed to get ANY justice in the country. MOB JUSTICE seems to be the ONLY the justice now-a-days!

  • MoAfrika - 2011-12-20 13:43

    i dont get it...

  • Tracey-Lee - 2011-12-20 13:47

    This is soooooooooo pathetic

  • frans.grobler3 - 2011-12-20 13:51

    Aaag not to worry he too will out on 3 years

  • Sharon - 2011-12-20 14:22

    So he spends Christmas with his family, but the parents of the 10 children that died has to spend this time without them sick where is the JUSTICE in that

  • Grant - 2011-12-20 14:48

    I appear to be the only person with a different opinion on this: The driver did not intend to kill the children and possibly himself. He was reckless and the charge should have been man slaughter. The case should have been rapped up ages ago and the driver should be doing 5 years. Consider this ; If a higher court finds that it was not murder, the driver will walk out a free man. What kind of message will this send out to other taxi drivers?

      Andre - 2011-12-20 19:59

      Interesting comment, thank you Grant. I am no legal expert, but I think this court ruling is a step in the wrong direction. If the charge is murder, should there not be a motive? The question is then, if Humphreys had not been a taxi driver, would he still have murdered those who perished in the accident in some other way? What *reason* did he have to murder any of the passangers? - I do not think he had any. I certainly do not condone Humpreys' actions or wish for him a lighter sentence - many years in prison and never being allowed behind a steering wheel for the rest of his life seem only just fair. What bothers me is the fact that it seems as if the means have been justified by the end - I do not believe that the justice system is supposed to operate in this manner. In my opinion a better solution would be to increase the sentence for wreckless driving and traffic violations that put lives at risk.

      MaxOdin.SA - 2011-12-20 20:34

      To you guys saying the judgement is wrong let me pose a question. If I for Sh1ts and giggles played russian roullette against your head having no motive to kill you but the possibility is there and with one of the spins the gun goes bang and you die. What am I then guilty of? Neglegent or reckless use of a firearm or murder? I say murder, and why because even though I didn't premeditate your death or have a motive with a revolver there is a one in six chance you will die from my actions. He contravened a law aimed at stopping exactly what happened in this case, effectively playing russian roulette with his taxi on many occasions.

      MaxOdin.SA - 2011-12-20 20:38

      It shows an indifference to the possibility of the deaths of not only himself but his passangers also. And also an indifference to the law. I say again pick up the learners book and see what it says about railcrossings and booms. just because the leaners book has pictures a 7 year old can understand and is all colourful and bright doesn't mean it's not law.

      lvpeterson - 2011-12-21 09:21

      in any crime intention is the key element. when transporting human life you have to take every precausion. Especially whn its minor's u transporting. He unintentionally had intention. He could forseen what his actions may result in thats y courts have found him guilty...

  • Simon - 2011-12-20 16:02

    why do you guys think they dont want to implement the death penalty , because half of their brothers will be killed, their tollies cut off because they raped , they wont be able to work because they wont have any hands , as from theft . Why do you think the info bill is silenced.

  • Simon - 2011-12-20 16:03

    To smanga - take an shower , it cures everything , said shower

  • carolyn.dewrance - 2011-12-20 19:19

    Wonder how much he paid them to reinstate his bail???

  • SuzanneGonzalez - 2011-12-20 21:36

    Wow, this murderer gets to spend Christmas at home with his family... What about the victim's families?? He broke the law by ignoring lawful signs & KILLED 10 innocent children...There is NO justice in this country

  • Cracker - 2011-12-20 21:46

    It was NOT murder. The buzz concept being thrown around by some supposedly legal minds is that of "dolus eventualis". Here's a sober and accurate description of the term by one of the finest legal minds our legal system has ever had the privilege of being blessed with, Holmes JA, in one of his wonderfully gracefully clear statements of the law, in S v Sigwahla 1967(4)SA 566(A) at 570: "The fact that objectively the accused ought reasonably to have foreseen such possibility is not sufficient. The distinction must be observed between what actually went on in the mind of the accused and what would have gone on in the mind of a bonus paterfamilias in the position of the accused. In other words, the distinction between between subjective foresight and objective foresee-ability must not become blurred. The factum probandum is dolus, not culpa." Those interested in the precise meaning of the Latin terms can google them. The point is this: The taxi driver is not guilty of murder. He was extremely negligent/ reckless. Why on earth was he going to INTENTIONALLY kill the kids? His savage nature? One must be very careful not to confuse recklessness and intentional killing. Well done Judge Desai!

  • Cracker - 2011-12-20 21:57

    Dolus eventualis as a legal concept is not a presumption of the existence of a guilty state of mind. If merely describes a legal/factual situation. Guess even the slightly inferior intellectuals can also find a home in the legal profession. They fail to recognize reality.

  • pages:
  • 1