Reporting alleged 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 bad-mouthed 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 maintained from the start that her intention was not to defame the father, but she insisted it was her legal and civil duty to report her concerns to the welfare people and the SAPS if she suspected that children were being abused.

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 by the father.

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

In defending the matter, the woman said she was entitled to send the letter, via email, to the police, as the Children’s Act empowered her to do so. She said there was a legal duty on the SAPS to investigate matters where children may be in danger.

The woman first alerted the local social worker to the possible plight of the children, but she was advised to raise her concerns with the police.

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, but he refused to disclose who showed him the letter.

The officer who at the time received the letter, denied he showed it to the man.

The welfare worker said as the complaint did not fall in the area where she worked, she advised the woman to send a letter to the police if she felt the children were in danger. She said she advised the appellant she would not get into trouble for reporting the matter to the police, because members of the public were obliged to report concerns about children to the police, and the Children’s Act would protect her.

The woman said her primary issue was that an investigation would result in protecting the children, because she was concerned for them. She said it was for the police to ascertain if the issues reported to the police were true or not.

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

In overturning the R50 000 damages award, the judge said: “It is only by reporting these instances that they may be investigated, addressed and properly responded to,” the judge said.