Iuze Mukube 

A Windhoek High Court Judge on Friday vocally condemned the killing of a close family member by a father and son, stating that the killing of the deceased within a domestic relationship constituted an aggravating factor. 

Judge Philanda Christiaan stated this factor requires stern judicial response to deter violence within the family and to uphold society’s condemnation of domestic killings. 

She made the remarks during a sentencing proceeding last Friday for Hendrik Le Roux (61) and Borris Le Roux (31), who were convicted for the murder of their close relative, Carlos Le Roux (24) in early October. The charges arise from the event that unfolded in the early hours of 9 April 2021 at the home of the Le Roux in Mariental. The deceased, who had long suffered from mental instability compounded by substance abuse, had strained the family to its limit especially with his erratic and often violent behaviour. 

The household was filled with tension, fear and exhaustion after attempts by Le Roux failed when he tried to get assistance from the police, hospitals, and social services. In the morning in question, a confrontation erupted again and the deceased’s behaviour, which was described as volatile and threatening, resulted in the accused restraining and assaulting him with hosepipes.The assault was severe and persistent, by sunrise, Carlos was lifeless. 

Christiaan expressed that “what happened was not a case of premeditated malice but the result of years of desperation, frustration, and emotional breakdown within a fractured home.” However, the court must send a clear and unambiguous message to those who might be tempted to resort to violence in moments of anger, frustration, or perceived provocation. “Human life is sacred, and no grievance, emotion, or domestic dispute can ever justify its unlawful taking,” she said. 

During mitigation, both the accused had expressed remorse over the death of their relative, but had also appealed for mercy in the sentencing. Their lawyer, Peru Liebenberg had argued that they were first time offenders, who acted under prolonged emotional strain and provocation arising from the deceased’s long-standing mental illness and substance abuse. 

Additionally, the incident, he argued, occurred in a context of cumulative frustration and fear rather than malice or intent to kill. State advocate Ethel Ndlovu had argued that the deceased was vulnerable, mentally ill, and unarmed at the time and he was mercilessly assaulted and endured severe pain from his close relatives. She also argued that the accused failed to show genuine remorse, with Le Roux justifying his actions by blaming the deceased’s behaviour and lack of state assistance while Borris attempted to shift the responsibility to his father. 

Christiaan stated that the mitigating factors of the accused such as emotional strain and provocation and expression of remorse, could not outweigh the seriousness of the offence, which involved the unlawful taking of life within a domestic relationship. 

“…domestic walls are not shields for violence, nor are emotions an excuse for bloodshed. Every person must know that the moment anger replaces restraint and a hand is raised against another, the protection of the law turns its judgement,” she stated. 

Borris was handed a period of 20-years’ imprisonment of which five years was suspended on condition while Le Roux was sentenced to 25-years’ imprisonment, with the same suspension period. 

She stated that Le Roux bears a higher degree of moral blameworthiness because as the father of both Borris and Carlos, he occupied a position of authority, protection, and moral influence within the household. 

“Instead of exercising these duties responsibly, he abused that position by leading and participating in the violent conduct that resulted in his son’s death,” said Christiaan. 

She pointed out that his actions were deliberate and sustained, showing no regard for the sanctity of life.She added that law, like conscience, rejects retaliation as a means of resolving domestic conflict. 

“It calls for restraint, lawful intervention, and compassion, even in the face of provocation. In this case, those principles were abandoned within the Le Roux household, where frustration and despair gave rise to violence that claimed the life of a son and brother,” she said. 

–mukubeiuze@gmail.com