Windhoek High Court Judge Claudia Claasen yesterday dismissed an application to appeal their conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court by Russian national Alexander Krylov and his Namibian counterpart Anna Engelbrecht.

Krylov, affectionately known as Sir Alex, was sentenced to 35 years and Engelbrecht 20 years’ imprisonment, respectively, on several counts of rape and trafficking in persons.

Krylov was convicted on 10 counts of rape and 10 counts of trafficking in persons, as well as a count of supplying children under the age of 18 with cigarettes. Engelbrecht was convicted on three counts of rape and three counts of trafficking in persons.

The judge sentenced Krylov to five years on each count of trafficking and 15 years on each count of rape. 

She, however, ordered that nine of the sentences on the trafficking counts are to be served concurrently with the sentences on the rape counts and further that eight of the sentences on the rape counts are to be served concurrently with two of the rape counts. 

She further sentenced him to a fine of N$12 000 or 12 months in default on the cigarette conviction.

Judge Claasen sentenced Engelbrecht to five years each on the trafficking convictions and 15 years each on the rape convictions. 

She ordered that four of the sentences on the trafficking convictions are to be served concurrently with four of the sentences on the rape counts.   

The 62-year-old Krylov admitted he had intercourse with at least five under-aged girls during 2017, but denied that he raped any of them.

Not happy with the convictions and sentences, they filed an application to appeal both in the Supreme Court and listed several grounds upon which they believe the Supreme Court will come to a different conclusion. 

Judge Claasen found that the grounds set out in the application contain general, sweeping terms and conclusions, which leaves much to be desired. 

She said the ground that accuses her of descending into the area and taking over/intervening in cross-examination of the complainants and of bias fails to specify – and as such, amounts to bare conclusions. 

She said that children, depending on their growth and development, may find court terminology difficult, which can obscure the truth, and it is the court’s duty to make the process as easy as pain-free for them. 

“In general, a judicial officer has to do what he reasonably can to remove obscurities of language or meaning whenever possible – for example, by asking questions himself. In the case, of a child witness, the need for that is greater. As such, a court has the duty to ensure that child witnesses receive the necessary assistance, which means it may simplify technical terms and specialised court language, and guard against children being misled in court,” the judge said. 

With regard to the sentences imposed, the judge said it is within her discretion to impose sentences as she sees fit within the ambit of the law. 

According to her, the sentences do not induce a sense of shock, as the convicts portray and are in line with sentences imposed in similar cases. 

Judge Claasen said that in her firm view, the applicants failed to show on a balance of probabilities that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Lawyer Ileni Velikoshi, who appeared for both applicants, indicated after the ruling that he will petition the Chief Justice.

The State was presented by Advocate Palmer Khumalo.  -rrouth@nepc.com.na