Reporting a potential sex abuser ‘not defamatory’

THE Western Cape High Court has reversed the decision of a magistrate who had ordered a woman to pay R50 000 in damages for defamation because she had reported that a father was sexually abusing his children.

A magistrate’s court earlier found that the woman had defamed the father in the letter of concern she had sent to the police. She was ordered to pay him damages.

However, the woman, who is not identified to safeguard the children, took the judgment on appeal to the high court.

She said her intention was not to defame the father, but it was her legal and civil duty to report her concerns to the welfare people and the SAPS.

The woman owned a holiday home on a farm in the Koue Bokkeveld region. The father, only identified as N, was a labourer at the farm where he lived with his family.

During 2016 the appellant sent a letter to a social worker and a Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Unit. The letter expressed concerns for the N family, in particular the two children, and detailed allegations of sexual deviancy and predatory behaviour on the part of the father.

The man claimed damages in the magistrate’s court for defamation and was awarded R50 000.

The court raised the issue of how the father came to be in possession of the letter to the police on which he based his defamation claim. He, however, remained tight lipped about who showed him the letter.

The officer who received the letter denied that he showed it to the man.

The man initially testified that he had not seen the letter which gave rise to the defamation action. He also refused to say who told him about the letter or how he came to learn of it. He admitted that the letter was confidential, but he said he was belittled by the allegations against him.

Judge Hayley Slingers said the magistrate was wrong in finding the woman defamed the father. She said the court should have ascertained how he learnt of the letter and whether it was obtained improperly.

The appellant’s legal representative argued that the letter was unlawfully obtained and uplifted from the police docket. This was not disputed or denied. On the contrary, the respondent refused to disclose how he came to be in possession of it, the judge said.

The judge said one of the objectives of the Children’s Act was to increase reporting of instances where children may be in need of care and protection to social services and/or to the SAPS.

“It is only by reporting these instances to social services and/or the SAPS that they may be investigated, addressed and properly responded to.

“Increased reporting resulting in increased protection of vulnerable children and increased accountability for those guilty of abuse and/or deliberate neglect will result in increased confidence by children to request assistance and to report abuse,” the judge said.