Bloemfontein - The government will ask the Supreme Court of Appeal on Friday to overturn an earlier judgment holding it liable for failing to prevent a 1995 shooting spree in which a man killed his wife and daughter and wounded five neighbours.
One of the neighbours, Dirk van Duivenboden, succeeded in a Cape High Court claim seeking to hold the minister for safety and security liable for damages as a result of the police's failure to seize the firearm from Neil Brooks before the shooting.
Brooks, from Bothasig near Cape Town, shot at his wife, Dawn, who fled with her son across the road to Van Duivenboden's house on October 21, 1995.
Brooks shot dead his daughter, Nicole (11), and went over to his neighbour's house where he shot his wife in Van Duivenboden's garage. Van Duivenboden, who had tried to come to her rescue, was shot in the ankle.
Brooks then put the pistol to his neighbour's head and pulled the trigger, but the gun did not discharge. He fired again, and hit Van Duivenboden in the shoulder.
Brooks was sentenced to 27 years in prison in 1996 on two counts of murder and five of attempted murder.
Van Duivenboden initially lost his R1.6-million claim in the Cape High Court, but his appeal was upheld by a full Bench of the same court in December 2000.
Previous incidents with guns
He claimed that Brooks was known to be threatening and aggressive, was often under the influence of alcohol, and always carried firearms and ammunition.
There had been two earlier incidents involving Brooks and a gun, claimed Van Duivenboden. In the first, Brooks and his wife pointed firearms at one another in a family squabble. In the second, Brooks held up his family and threatened to shoot
anyone who came near his house.
The police failed to take any steps to seize his firearm, says Van Duivenboden in court documents.
He contends they should have instituted proceedings in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act to declare Brooks unfit to possess a firearm.
The government's defence is based on the premise that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Brooks would shoot a member of the public.
It claims SA Police Service members had no legal duty towards Van Duivenboden to institute or initiate proceedings against Brooks under the act.
The appeal follows days after a Cape High Court judgment that the departments of justice and safety and security were liable for an attack on rape victim Alix Carmichele.
Her assailant, Francois Coetzee, had previous convictions for assault, housebreaking and indecent assault and was awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 16-year-old girl when he attacked Carmichele.
Long road to victory
After the August 1995 attack, she had a fractured skull, broken arm, and a deep knife wound in the chest.
Carmichele on Tuesday won a seven-year legal battle against the government.
Her claim was first dismissed in the High Court, and then in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The matter then went to the Constitutional Court, which ordered the High Court to hear the case afresh.
The court found the State had been negligent and failed in its legal duty to protect Carmichele against the risk of violence.
On Friday, the Appeal Court will also hear an appeal by the government against a Pretoria High Court judgment in February last year holding it liable to a member of the public to the tune of R600 000. This was the amount stolen from him in a robbery, which police subsequently recovered and decided to keep for themselves.
The minister of safety and security contends the police concerned were not acting in the scope of their duties, and the government could not be held liable for their deeds.
