Jean van Loggerenberg, a 34-year-old man accused of being in possession of child pornography, appeared at the Kempton Park Magistrates Court on 3 March 2020. 

The accused, who has a previous conviction of statutory rape for which he received a five-year suspended sentence, was applying for bail, which was subsequently denied.

The man was arrested on 14 February 2020 along with four others across Gauteng. 

This was part of an intelligence operation conducted by the South African Police Service (SAPS), Gauteng serial and electronic (FCS) investigation (SECI). They worked with the United States Department of Homeland Security, the National Crime Intelligence Cyber Crime Unit and Gauteng Forensic Social Work Services.

The 34-year-old, who is a resident of Kempton Park, had previously appeared in court on 17 February 2020. That bail hearing was postponed when it arose that he may have been previously convicted for a similar offence.

After it was ascertained that in March 2015 he was convicted of the statutory rape of five 15-year-olds, the state sought to oppose bail upon his second appearance.

The court heard that in his previous conviction he had used the modus operandi of befriending each of his victims via a digital gaming platform and then proceeded to have individual consensual sex with them over an unspecified period of time.

Van Loggerenberg’s suspended sentence for that statutory rape conviction was scheduled to end on 15 March, 2020, provided he was not found guilty of a similar offence.

Upon his arrest in this recent operation by the SAPS the accused was found in possession of child pornography on his mobile device. Furthermore, the state found that he had downloaded and then deleted child pornography on his home computer.

The accused’s lawyer, Crystal Keevy, indicated to the court that he intended to plead not guilty to the charges brought against him.

Keevy proceeded to argue that there was no reason for the court not to grant bail to the applicant as he was not a flight risk.

“The alleged offence before this court is not one that deals with the physical involvement of a child. It is indeed so that the allegations against the applicant are one to be found in possession of child pornography. It is further submitted, your worship, that the complainants in the matter before this honourable court are indeed that of the police (state). It is not a single and multiple complainant that we are dealing with,” submitted Keevy.

The state concurred with the defence that Van Loggerenberg was not a flight risk. However, it countered that that was not the reason it was opposing bail.

“The release of the accused on bail will expose children that we have in his vicinity to danger. He does not seem – according to the evidence before court, the allegations in the present case and the previous conviction – he doesn’t seem to have changed,” argued State prosecutor Takalani Mukhumo.

“There is a serious need to protect the community, especially children, from the manner in which the accused is behaving (himself). Yes, it may not be the same act with which the accused has currently been charged with, but it is an offence committed against children,” Mukhumo further submitted.

The magistrate presiding over the matter, Veena Krishna, ultimately agreed with the state and ruled against granting Van Loggerenberg bail.

“The defence argued that one needs to bear in mind that the applicant does not have access to children. And I do not agree with that. Whilst the possession of child pornography does not entail direct contact, it does involve the exploitation of children,” said Krishna. 

“And for one to argue that child pornography, unlike statutory sexual assault, does not involve direct contact itself would in my view lead to one undermining the seriousness of the offence,” said Krishna in her decision to deny bail.

The matter is scheduled for hearing on 12 March, 2020, at the Kempton Park Magistrate Court. DM