Staff Reporter
Convicted wife killer Jason Thomas Rohde has had his 20-year sentence for killing his wife reduced by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to 15 years after it was found the trial court erred by departing from the prescribed jail term.
The SCA however dismissed his appeal against conviction and he is now expected to present himself to prison authorities to start serving his sentence.
Rohde was convicted on November 8, 2018 by the Western Cape High Court on two counts, namely, the murder of his wife, Susan Francis Rohde, and defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
The second count, according to the SCA ruling, was based on an allegation that subsequent to the murder of his wife, the appellant rearranged the scene of the crime in an attempt to give an impression that the deceased had committed suicide.
On February 27, 2019, Rohde was sentenced to an effective term of 20 years’ imprisonment.
This included 18 years for the murder and five years for trying to defeat the ends of justice.
However, three years for the second count were ordered to run concurrently with the murder sentence.
The trial court refused Rohde’s application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence but the SCA subsequently granted him an audience.
The matter dates back to July 22-24, 2016 when the company led by Rohde, a well-known real estate company, held its annual conference at the Spier Hotel near Stellenbosch in the Western Cape.
Rohde, as the chief executive officer of the company, attended the conference.
His wife accompanied him to the venue and attended the social events associated with the conference.
However, on the morning of July 24, his wife was found dead in the bathroom of their suite at the hotel.
The issue at the heart of the appeal, according to the SCA, was whether the deceased died as a result of smothering and/or manual strangulation, as the respondent alleged, or whether she committed suicide by hanging herself from a hook affixed to the inside of the bathroom door with the use of the cord of an electric hair curler, as claimed by the appellant.
The central question before the SCA was whether the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had been killed by the appellant, or whether there was a reasonable possibility that she might have committed suicide.
The SCA found that the state had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was killed by manual strangulation and that only thereafter the ligature was applied to her neck.
Thus the trial court correctly convicted the appellant on both counts.
However, the SCA found that the trial court erred in finding that the deceased had been smothered.
There were three reasons why this finding could not stand.
The first was that the trial court made a material factual error.
The pillowcase that it examined had been found on the right-hand side of the bed where the deceased slept.
Secondly, the far-reaching observations of the trial court in respect of the photograph of the pillowcase were not put to any witnesses or to the appellant and could by no means be said to be clear.
“The trial court’s reliance on its own observations was thus wholly unjustified.”
In the third place, the aforesaid evaluation of the expert evidence demonstrated that external airway obstruction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The SCA found further that it must regrettably be said that save for the findings that the appellant strangled the deceased and attempted to stage her suicide, the court a quo’s ‘vivid picture’ constituted speculation in respect of both content and sequence.
It said there was no evidence for the finding that the appellant had punched the deceased with his ring bearing fist or that it was reasonably possible to conclude the deceased was not smothered and that the right rib fractures were caused by attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
The SCA found that these matters impacted on the question of an appropriate sentence.
The SCA held that the appellant must be sentenced for the first count on the basis that he unlawfully and intentionally killed his wife by manual strangulation, but did not assault her in any other way.
The appeal court also found that after due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, no substantial and compelling circumstances justified a departure from the prescribed sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for the count of murder.
It said the sentence of three years’ imprisonment was appropriate in respect of the second count and should run concurrently with the first one.
The adjusted sentences will be deemed to have been imposed on February 27, 2019.