20 years for Rehoboth wife killer

REHOBOTH resident Prollius van Zyl faces 20 years behind bars for killing his wife three years ago.Van Zyl (34) was sentenced by Judge Kato van Niekerk in the High Court in Windhoek on Friday.She had intended to impose a jail term of 23 years, but deducted the three years that Van Zyl has spent in custody awaiting the finalisation of his trial, the Judge indicated.

Judge Van Niekerk convicted Van Zyl of murder a week earlier. Van Zyl was accused of murdering his wife, Melinda van Zyl (37), by stabbing her to death with a knife at their home at Rehoboth in the early morning hours of November 23 2002.It provided a bloody end to a marriage that had appeared happy to outsiders – but that was in fact marked by past incidents of violence, according to what the court heard during Van Zyl’s trial.During the trial, Van Zyl stated repeatedly that he loved his wife and had been intent on saving his marriage.He displayed obvious emotion, breaking down in tears at times, as he told the court that he had asked for forgiveness from his wife’s family, but that he found it difficult to forgive himself, as he had done a very bad and ugly thing, Judge Van Niekerk recounted.The couple had two children after marrying in 1993.Van Zyl, who is a trained refrigeration technician, was a devoted and loving father, and a husband who liked helping his wife with household duties such as cooking – but when he drank, a hidden capacity for violence tended to come to the fore, the court heard.By the time of Melinda van Zyl’s death, she had obtained a divorce order against her husband, but they were still living in the same house.She had also pressed charges of assault against him twice by then.On one occasion in 1995, he had given her a thrashing with a belt – he “chastised” her like a father would have done, he told the court – when she returned home after a night out.On another occasion, he had pushed her against a fridge in their house during a quarrel.On both occasions, Van Zyl admitted during his trial, he had been drinking.He pleaded guilty both times.The incident of November 23 2002 was once again preceded by drinking on Van Zyl’s part.After he had arrived home in the early morning hours, an argument broke out between him and his wife.She eventually ran from the house towards the Police barracks next door.Prollius van Zyl followed her, and as the confrontation with his wife continued, stabbed her with a knife.”The crime of murder is serious in itself.In this particular instance it was brutally and viciously committed,” Judge Van Niekerk commented during sentencing.”The deceased was repeatedly stabbed and cut with a flick knife in extremely vulnerable areas of her body, namely the neck and chest.”In total there were eight knife wounds on the body of which four were in the neck.Five of the wounds were inflicted with excessive force.(…) The wounds were inflicted with direct intention to kill.”Melinda van Zyl had tried to defend herself, but Van Zyl still stabbed her repeatedly while she was screaming for help, the Judge recounted the evidence before her.”She was unarmed and no match for him.(…) She was found sitting on the stairs trying to hold closed the wounds in her neck.The deceased must have been terrified, realising the extreme danger she was in and witnessing the loss of blood from her neck.”Having stabbed her, Van Zyl left the scene – conduct that she found aggravating, the Judge said.The couple’s daughter, then aged seven, witnessed the stabbing.”No doubt this incident must have psychological implications for her.Both children must feel the consequences of this event most acutely.Not only have they lost their mother to a brutal and vicious death, but she died at the hands of their father.On the same day, the accused was placed in custody where he has been since.In that sense they have lost him too,” Judge Van Niekerk remarked.While the stabbing was brutal and vicious, what the court heard about Van Zyl during his trial tends to indicate that he does not have an inherently violent nature, Judge Van Niekerk also noted.The court heard last week that during his time in custody, Van Zyl has started teaching illiterate juveniles in the Windhoek Central Prison how to read and write.”It is clear that he loves children and that they love him,” she said in this regard.From having seen him in the witness box during the trial, when he twice testified in mitigation and also in his own defence, she agreed with Van Zyl’s defence counsel, Bradley Basson, that he “always remained calm and humble”, the Judge said.”He was unfailingly polite in all situations, even while under protracted and at times vigorous cross-examination.He gave me the impression of being a very patient person.Perhaps that is one of the reasons why he is successful with children.”It struck me that, although he claims that the deceased grabbed the knife from his belt during the incident, he was generally careful and reluctant to tarnish the image and reputation of the deceased when relating incidents of the past or giving explanations for his actions.”Judge Van Niekerk said a sentence of 25 to 30 years’ imprisonment, as suggested by Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef, would be too harsh in the circumstances of the case.”Justice must be done; but mercy, not a sledgehammer, is its concomitant,” she quoted from a past South African case on that point.Van Zyl was accused of murdering his wife, Melinda van Zyl (37), by stabbing her to death with a knife at their home at Rehoboth in the early morning hours of November 23 2002.It provided a bloody end to a marriage that had appeared happy to outsiders – but that was in fact marked by past incidents of violence, according to what the court heard during Van Zyl’s trial.During the trial, Van Zyl stated repeatedly that he loved his wife and had been intent on saving his marriage. He displayed obvious emotion, breaking down in tears at times, as he told the court that he had asked for forgiveness from his wife’s family, but that he found it difficult to forgive himself, as he had done a very bad and ugly thing, Judge Van Niekerk recounted.The couple had two children after marrying in 1993.Van Zyl, who is a trained refrigeration technician, was a devoted and loving father, and a husband who liked helping his wife with household duties such as cooking – but when he drank, a hidden capacity for violence tended to come to the fore, the court heard.By the time of Melinda van Zyl’s death, she had obtained a divorce order against her husband, but they were still living in the same house.She had also pressed charges of assault against him twice by then.On one occasion in 1995, he had given her a thrashing with a belt – he “chastised” her like a father would have done, he told the court – when she returned home after a night out.On another occasion, he had pushed her against a fridge in their house during a quarrel.On both occasions, Van Zyl admitted during his trial, he had been drinking.He pleaded guilty both times.The incident of November 23 2002 was once again preceded by drinking on Van Zyl’s part.After he had arrived home in the early morning hours, an argument broke out between him and his wife.She eventually ran from the house towards the Police barracks next door.Prollius van Zyl followed her, and as the confrontation with his wife continued, stabbed her with a knife.”The crime of murder is serious in itself.In this particular instance it was brutally and viciously committed,” Judge Van Niekerk commented during sentencing.”The deceased was repeatedly stabbed and cut with a flick knife in extremely vulnerable areas of her body, namely the neck and chest.”In total there were eight knife wounds on the body of which four were in the neck.Five of the wounds were inflicted with excessive force.(…) The wounds were inflicted with direct intention to kill.”Melinda van Zyl had tried to defend herself, but Van Zyl still stabbed her repeatedly while she was screaming for help, the Judge recounted the evidence before her.”She was unarmed and no match for him.(…) She was found sitting on the stairs trying to hold closed t
he wounds in her neck.The deceased must have been terrified, realising the extreme danger she was in and witnessing the loss of blood from her neck.”Having stabbed her, Van Zyl left the scene – conduct that she found aggravating, the Judge said.The couple’s daughter, then aged seven, witnessed the stabbing.”No doubt this incident must have psychological implications for her.Both children must feel the consequences of this event most acutely.Not only have they lost their mother to a brutal and vicious death, but she died at the hands of their father.On the same day, the accused was placed in custody where he has been since.In that sense they have lost him too,” Judge Van Niekerk remarked.While the stabbing was brutal and vicious, what the court heard about Van Zyl during his trial tends to indicate that he does not have an inherently violent nature, Judge Van Niekerk also noted.The court heard last week that during his time in custody, Van Zyl has started teaching illiterate juveniles in the Windhoek Central Prison how to read and write.”It is clear that he loves children and that they love him,” she said in this regard.From having seen him in the witness box during the trial, when he twice testified in mitigation and also in his own defence, she agreed with Van Zyl’s defence counsel, Bradley Basson, that he “always remained calm and humble”, the Judge said.”He was unfailingly polite in all situations, even while under protracted and at times vigorous cross-examination.He gave me the impression of being a very patient person.Perhaps that is one of the reasons why he is successful with children.”It struck me that, although he claims that the deceased grabbed the knife from his belt during the incident, he was generally careful and reluctant to tarnish the image and reputation of the deceased when relating incidents of the past or giving explanations for his actions.”Judge Van Niekerk said a sentence of 25 to 30 years’ imprisonment, as suggested by Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef, would be too harsh in the circumstances of the case.”Justice must be done; but mercy, not a sledgehammer, is its concomitant,” she quoted from a past South African case on that point.