Home News Ex-pub man still behind bars

Ex-pub man still behind bars

368
SHARE

“She wants me to stay in custody to punish me as she knows I may be found not guilty in the sexual assault case”

IN COURT: Hansie Galloway appeared in the Kimberley Magistrates Court yesterday. Picture: Soraya Crowie

THE OWNER of the now defunct Shadows Pub and Grill, Hansie Galloway, remains behind bars a week after being arrested, while waiting for the continuation of his bail application.

Johannes “Hansie” Hendrick Galloway, 53, was arrested on a charge of harassment: contravention of harassment protection order last Thursday, after appearing on a charge of sexual assault of a minor in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court earlier on the same day.

Galloway is charged with contravening a protection order, issued on October 4 2018, when he “directly communicated” with a person apparently listed on the protection order and told her “that she is not the child’s guardian” and that “she is a criminal”, while appearing in court.

The person (the complainant in the contravention order) is apparently a family member of the girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Galloway during 2015, when she was only six years old.

Galloway appeared in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court yesterday, where he applied for bail.

In his affidavit, read to the court by his legal representative, advocate Markus Mafaro, it transpires that Galloway has five previous convictions – one of malicious damage to property, two of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm (GBH), one of drunken driving and one of common assault. He also has two pending matters that include one of sexual assault (the matter he was appearing for when the alleged contravention of the harassment order occurred) and one of fraud. Both pending cases allegedly occurred in 2015.

Mafaro indicated that his client denied the charges (of contravening the harassment order) and intended to plead not guilty. He further submitted that Galloway was not a flight risk and “had no intention of interfering with witnesses”.

Galloway further claims that the complainant made allegations against him on social media posts and that she was the one who was in contravention of the harassment order.

“She wants me to stay in custody to punish me as she knows I may be found not guilty in the sexual assault case,” the affidavit read.

In support of Galloway’s bail application, his current girlfriend was called as a witness.

She told the court that the main applicant in the harassment order, as well as the complainant in the contravention of harassment order, were female family members of her estranged husband.

When asked by State prosecutor Elmarie Kruger if she was aware that the interim harassment order (dated June 2018) was made final on October 4 2018, the girlfriend answered “no” and said Galloway was only aware of the interim order.

Kruger indicated that the final harassment order prohibited Galloway from contacting or communicating with the main applicant and several others (including the current complainant).

Before closing the defence’s case, Mafaro raised concern by saying that the current complainant’s name did not appear on the interim order and only contained an initial and surname on the final order, which he submitted “could be anyone”.

“My client’s arrest was premature and to keep him in custody, when the complainant is not mentioned properly, is not in the interests of justice. The State does not have a prima facie case,” Mafaro concluded.

Magistrate Dolly Mokoto also warned the State to be careful with regards to protection orders.

“When you have a protection order that is so vague, it could lead to other issues,” Mokoto said.

Kruger, however, requested a remand and said that she intended to call the main applicant of the harassment order to testify in the opposed bail application during the next court appearance.koto postponed the matter to tomorrow.