Alleged rapist’s admissions can be used as evidence

The High Court has ruled that an alleged kidnapper and rapist’s rights were adequately explained to him before he made certain admissions to the police about his alleged crimes. Judge Dinnah Usiku ruled last week in a trial within a trial that Franklin Savage’s admissions were admissible as evidence. Savage’s lawyer Brownell /Uirab had earlier objected to the admissions on the basis that his client had allegedly not been properly warned of his rights and that he had been assaulted. “The accused’s rights were fully explained to him, he was not assaulted and his admissions to the police are admissible,” Usiku ruled. Although one of his alleged victims had died in the meantime, Savage’s trial continues. He is accused of raping a 37-year-old woman on November 28, 2010. He is further charged with two other rape counts, kidnapping and attempted murder, following another attack on another woman on December 3, 2010. It is alleged that he forced this victim to drink a substance with the intent to overpower her, so he could commit a sexual act. Usiku said it is a well-established principle that the onus is on the State to prove that the police had done all that they are obliged to do, which is to inform the accused of his rights at the pre-trial stage, to enable a suspect to exercise such rights. She said Savage was arrested on December 3, 2010 behind the Rehoboth Police station near a riverbed. According to her the arresting police officer informed him of his right to remain silent and that whatever he was going to say would be written down and used as evidence against him in court. Usiku said the accused was also told about his right to appoint a lawyer of his choice or that the State could offer him a Legal Aid attorney. She further said that it was only after he was informed of his rights that the accused was asked about the bloodstain on his body. The police had spoken to the accused in Afrikaans, a language he understood very well. He was thereafter taken to the scene of an alleged incident. The accused at no stage brought it to the attention of the police that he did not follow or understand any explanation given to him. The police officers, Detective Officer Lydia Hochritt and Constable Elina Johannes, had testified that the accused was informed of his rights when he was booked out of the police cells to be taken to hospital for a medical examination on December 4, 2010. He had no injuries. He was then for the second time informed of his rights, after he offered to make certain admissions. A warning statement was taken from the accused and it was then that he indicated that he wanted a lawyer and that he will plead not guilty. “It was explained [to him] that his rights were explained at different stages by the police,” Usiku said She emphasised that all the witnesses were adamant that they had informed Savage of his rights. WINDHOEK FRED GOEIEMAN