Dippenaar renews bid to appeal murder convictions

Convicted murderer Jandré Lodewyk Dippenaar has launched a fresh bid to take his appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence used to convict him of multiple counts of murder following a fatal crash was fundamentally misinterpreted.

Dippenaar was the driver of a vehicle that was involved in a mass-fatality crash near Henties Bay on 29 December 2014, in which six people were killed. After a protracted trial, he was eventually sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on six counts of murder.

Dippenaar’s 98-page court filing describes what his legal team believes were numerous inconsistencies in the State’s case.

He contends that the High Court failed to properly reconcile expert accident reconstruction evidence with eyewitness accounts, resulting in conflicting conclusions that, in his view, could lead another court to reach a different outcome.

In his application for leave to appeal, Dippenaar challenges the basis of his conviction, arguing that “speculation, mere theories or hypothetical suggestions cannot avail the State", particularly where objective evidence points to a different version of events.

Evidence

Last December, the High Court upheld his conviction on all counts, including six counts of murder based on dolus eventualis, as well as a conviction for reckless driving under the Road Traffic and Transportation Act.

According to his heads of argument, the trial court was confronted with a complex evidentiary situation, as the driver of the other vehicle died in the crash, while Dippenaar himself suffers from amnesia and could not give his own account of the events. As a result, the case relied largely on eyewitnesses and expert witnesses who reconstructed the accident after the fact.

He argues that the State’s version of events is contradicted by physical evidence from the scene, including indicators such as gouge marks and the positioning of the vehicles, which, according to the defence, point to a different point of impact than that advanced by the prosecution.

Dippenaar, through his lawyer Albert Strydom, further submitted that the court should have placed greater reliance on this objective evidence, rather than on what he describes as inconsistent and, at times, unreliable eyewitness accounts.

However, State prosecutor Ethel Ndlovu maintains that the High Court correctly dismissed the previous appeal bid and properly evaluated the evidence in its totality.

In its response, the prosecution argues that Dippenaar was driving recklessly, including overtaking in unsafe conditions, and that multiple witnesses observed dangerous driving behaviour. It submits that any inconsistencies in witness testimony were minor and did not affect the overall credibility of the State’s case.

On the murder convictions, the State supports the court’s finding, arguing that by driving at high speed and overtaking on a blind rise, Dippenaar foresaw the possibility of a fatal collision and proceeded regardless.

The matter will return to court on 5 June for a ruling.

[email protected]