Whisky
Drink-spiller guilty of assault
"Horribly shocked," was the only comment Gauteng businessman Daryl Peense could give journalists on Wednesday after he was found guilty of assault for spilling his drink on President Jacob Zuma.
Durban Magistrate Gugulethu Mpikeleli said she agreed with the State, which argued that Peense had intentionally spilt his whisky on the president at the Durban July last year.
In defence, Peense’s advocate, Jimmy Howse, had earlier argued that if none of his client’s drink had actually touched the president, how could it be assault?
"One of the bizarre features of this case is that no one has yet asked the president whether he was even aware of what happened,” said Howse during the trial. “No one has yet asked him whether he considered the incident to constitute impairment of his bodily integrity. Why not?"
On Wednesday, during her judgment, Mpikeleli said that, according to the legal definition of assault, one did not have to physically touch a complainant for it to be assault. The complainant, she said, also did not have to be aware of the assault.
She said she felt, though, that the drink had touched the jacket used to protect the president when the drink spilt.
Peense, of Joburg, was standing with drink in hand on a 5m-high balcony at the Durban July last year when the president passed underneath. The State argued that Peense had deliberately tried to spill his whisky on the president.
One of the president’s bodyguards testified he had taken action because he had believed the liquid might have been acid intended to harm the president.
The bodyguard said he had been on alert when he saw Peense holding the glass and had covered the president with his jacket.
Peense pleaded not guilty to the charge and admitted that a small quantity of his drink had spilt from his glass, but said none of it had spilt on the president and that he had had no intention of harming the state leader.
Peense said he had been drunk at the time and his drink had spilt accidentally. The balcony had been crowded and there had been lots of pushing and shoving.
Mpikeleli said that when Peense testified he had said he was not sure whether he had been pushed.
The magistrate referred to Howse’s closing argument that the State should not have prosecuted because there was no case. She disagreed, saying that the case involved a person’s dignity and integrity. "This isn’t a trivial matter at all."
She said that Peense’s action had caused the two bodyguards to "overreact".
"They testified that it was their job to overreact. It’s their duty to ensure the president is protected at all times. Their suspicions were confirmed when alcohol landed on the jacket used as intervention," she said.
"If one looks closely at the time (Peense) had the glass in his hand to the time it spilt, there was a huge space of time, which leaves one wondering whether there was intention or not. When the drink spilt, (Peense) moved back quickly from the balcony. This leaves one to wonder if this was a mistake. If it was, why move back so quickly?"
She said the case was a unique one with a unique set of facts, but the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Peense had intended to assault the president.
Peense’s legal counsel argued for his R500 bail to be extended, saying that he ran a business and "needs to put food on the table". Arguments for sentencing are expected to be heard on September 8.
(Published by Daily News - July 28, 2011)