Donovan Moodley wins review of his parole denial

After more than a decade, convicted murderer Donovan Moodley made his first appearance in public when he appeared in the Johannesburg high court on Wednesday for a review application against the parole board’s decision to deny him parole in March. 

Looking trim in a dark grey suit and matching tie, Moodley appeared upbeat as he chatted with his legal team and called out, “I’m OK, I made it here”, when the court orderly called out, “Donovan, how are you?” 

Moodley appeared before the parole board on March 29, along with his lawyer. He represented himself during the proceedings, which were also attended by Rob and Sharon Matthews, parents of Bond University student Leigh Matthews, who was shot dead by Moodley a day after her 21st birthday on July 9 2004. 

Moodley, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life, has given several versions of what happened, claiming alternately that he acted alone, then that he acted in concert with accomplices who forced him to commit the murder by threatening to harm his family.

More recently he said he had not intended to kill Leigh after kidnapping her but that she had startled him, causing him to accidentally shoot her in fright — and he had shot her several more times to make sure she died without suffering unnecessarily. 

At the end of the parole hearing, the board said they believed Moodley was not remorseful and had not been rehabilitated. They pointed to the fact that he had unlawfully used a device in prison to record a conversation with a parole board member as an indication that he was not rehabilitated.

The board recommended Moodley undergo individual therapy and counselling to address his “abnormal love for money”.

Moodley, who has lodged several court actions against the authorities in his quest for a parole hearing, was dissatisfied with the decision to deny him parole and immediately petitioned the court for a review. 

The matter was heard by Joburg high court judge Stuart Wilson, who declared, “I tend to tilt my sail towards open justice,” when granting the media permission to take pictures and film during court proceedings. 

Moodley’s lawyer Muhammed Vally kicked off the hearing by saying his client felt the parole board had been either incompetent or biased in the decision-making process, that Moodley had been prejudiced because although he had been allowed to have his lawyer present at the hearing, he was not allowed to sit next to him and the lawyer was repeatedly “shut down” when he tried to interject. 

He also objected to one of the board members falling into a deep sleep during the hearing for a lengthy amount of time, arguing that his participation in the decision nullified the fairness of the process. 

“The parole board conducted the proceedings in a questionable manner,” Vally said, explaining why Moodley had filed an urgent interdict to challenge the decision to deny him parole.

This was the second hearing that was being questioned in court after the first had been thrown out and a second hearing ordered, he added. 

“We are saying these are exceptional circumstances and believe that there is no reason to believe there will be a different result if we go through round three,” said Vally, telling Wilson they did not believe they would ever get a fair hearing from the parole board. 

“Indeed, doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity,” Wilson said, adding: “I agree, something has to change.” 

Vally asked that the court consider recommending that the correctional services minister grant Moodley parole, or should another finding be made, that a strict timeline be laid down for the way forward so that Moodley could have “some idea of the length of this ball of string”. 

Representing Rob Matthews, who was entered into the court proceedings as an interested party, advocate Annade Theart-Hofmeyr told the court the victim’s family felt equally aggrieved by the parole process as they had not been allowed to place all the annexures and statements they wanted to before the board. 

“We believe that the material before the board was incomplete, such as the profile of the offender, which did not contain all the relevant information and specifically the merits. Also, the case management report doesn’t disclose the full disciplinary record,” Theart-Hofmeyr said. 

“We wanted to show that in 2018 Mr Moodley stated to the Constitutional Court under oath that he was assisted in committing the crime. He touches on remorse but he cannot engage truthfully with what has happened, and this clearly shows his lack of remorse,” she said, explaining that this had not been allowed.

“We have information that Mr Moodley was involved in an attempt to escape. We are asking that we be allowed to put this before the court and the minister and the National Council [of Correctional Services]. We’ve attached communications between the Hawks and a correctional services task team detailing how Moodley handed over cash and we submit this has a direct bearing on his risk of recidivism. We got the information in time for this court hearing, but not in time for the parole hearing.” 

Theart-Hofmeyr said the family had concerns about the parole process and would be satisfied if the the court were to set aside the decision and ask for the matter to go before a newly constituted parole board to be conducted fairly for the minister to make an informed decision that may be different to that taken by the board — particularly in the case of offenders serving life terms. 

Lawyer Stephen May, speaking on behalf of amicus curae or friend of the court, said their focus was on due process and law, and while they have empathy for the families involved, “if we focus too much on the people, we lose sight of what’s at stake”. 

Arguing on behalf of correctional services, John Malema said he believed the parole board had engaged properly with the legal process, and that Moodley had not been denied his rights. He argued that Moodley had evaded answering questions over the device he had used in prison to make secret recordings, and that this should be taken as an indication that he was not rehabilitated. 

When asked to comment on the fact that the board member appointed specifically to represent the interests of the police had fallen so deeply asleep that he was not woken when receiving two phone calls on the cellphone in his pocket set on vibrate mode, nor when an extremely distressed Sharon Matthews had called out loudly, Malema conceded there was no dispute that this had happened. 

“The parole board’s decision was irrational and unlawful and must be set aside,” Wilson said. 

Judgment on the remedy and way forward was reserved. 

TimesLIVE