Cape Town - Convicted child killer and rapist Moyhdian Pangkaeker is expected to be sentenced on February 14 as proceedings concluded in the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday.
Pangkaeker was convicted on 21 criminal charges while he maintained his innocence throughout the trial, having pleaded not guilty to 27 charges brought against him.
State prosecutor Lenro Badenhorst in his heads of argument said the prescribed minimum sentences applied to many of his convictions.
“It is submitted that the luring away of the innocent victim from the safety of her own neighbourhood and parental care must be seen in the most serious light.
“The accused had lots of time to reflect when he was given a lift to the petrol station outside Worcester. Instead, he chose to persist with his heinous plans when he told the Good Samaritans that he was taking his victim to her mother in Beaufort West.
“It is submitted that it was cruel and inhuman to take her to a dark area on the side of the road in the Karoo bush, and requires a heavy sentence ... The accused continuously, over days in court, repeatedly fabricated different versions of the events to prove his innocence,” the State argued.
Pangkaeker had abducted Tazne in 2020 and a myriad charges were added to his charge sheet, which detailed how he had been a repeat offender who had breached his parole conditions when he kidnapped the eight-year-old girl.
His sexual and abusive crimes were of such a nature that parole officer Freddy Wakefield described him as being at a high risk for reoffending and that the “only appropriate sentence is a lengthy custodial sentence”.
Defence lawyer Saleem Halday, arguing for mitigation of sentencing, said: “If a life sentence is handed down on one or more of the abovementioned counts, the accused will be in the region of 83 years old when he can even be considered for parole. This age of 83 is well below the life expectancy in our country. It will be a death sentence of sorts. The sentence must not reflect or appease public opinion; it must in fact serve public interest. It does not serve public interest to sentence a relatively elderly person to prison to essentially die there with no hope of any sort of future.
“An eye-for-an-eye approach has no part in our criminal justice system. To sentence a 58-year-old person to a life sentence is a crushing sentence leaving no room for any form of hope or for the rehabilitation process to play itself out fully. We reiterate that this would not serve the interests of society, especially in light of the fact that the probation officer testified that the rehabilitation programmes in prison can benefit the accused,” argued Halday.
Cape Times