Gwaze's family say court ruling reeks of racism

Print

Tue, 18 May 2010 7:28a.m. UPDATED 6:10PM

George Gwaze and his supporters (file pic)

George Gwaze and his supporters (file pic)

The daughter of a man ordered to undergo a retrial after being cleared of rape and murder says the case is now more about "persecution than prosecution" and reeks of racism.

Zimbabwean immigrant George Gwaze was found not guilty of the rape and murder of his 10-year-old niece Charlene by a Christchurch High Court jury in 2008 but the Crown objected to what it considered the presentation of hearsay evidence by the defence and took the rare step of appealing the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the verdicts but in a ruling released yesterday, the Supreme Court quashed Gwaze's acquittals and ordered a new trial.

It said a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred at the original trial over evidence admitted from a South African medical expert.

The Crown said Gwaze suffocated or strangled his niece during sexual violation. But the defence said the damage was from an infection that resulted from her having contracted HIV.

Late in the trial Gwaze's lawyers presented evidence from paediatric surgeon Professor Heinz Rode that Charlene's symptoms were similar to those of South African Aids victims.

Gwaze's daughter, Maggie, said yesterday the Supreme Court decision was very disappointing.

"I think this is more (about) persecution than prosecution now," she told the New Zealand Herald.

"If there's ever been a display of discrimination and racism in New Zealand, this is the best of it. It's because of where we come from and who we are."

Her family could now only show up in court again and "see what they have in store for us", she said.

Another daughter, Nothando Gwaze, 23, also expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court decision.

"We will stand by the truth, which is what we have done since this whole thing began, and we know that justice will surely prevail and we won't give up," she told The Press.

Both the Appeal Court and Supreme Court found that Prof Rode's evidence should not have been heard by the jury, but only the Supreme Court found this to be an error of law, and therefore upheld the appeal.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

22 May 2010 02:24p.m.

Lisa wrote:

If race was an issue in this country then surely Maori wouldn't overepresent crime and prison numbers in NZ.Obviously people don't get away with Crime because of their race in NZ. As someone very close to this case, and as a Kiwi I have to say I am extremely disappointed with the way this family has been treated. It is racism if you know the details of this case. I just wish people would take the time to understand why this case is clear discrimination before they rush to want to 'send Gwaze back to where he comes from' . So why don't you retry Bain and Kahui then???

19 May 2010 11:13p.m.

Brian wrote:

's absolutely everything to do with racism. If the colour of his skin wasn't black, then the investigating detective would have spent less time looking at the evidence instead of investigating his imagination. The case should never have gone to trial in the first place. And the hearsay evidence was introduced by the Crown - NOT the defence.

19 May 2010 04:51p.m.

dude wrote:

The old race card trick, thats a maori thing and maybe they think it will work for them.
Well if they dont like the way we do things here maybe they should exercise their right to leave!!
This has nothing to do with race,if your black,white or brindle the same would apply.

18 May 2010 05:05p.m.

Ernst wrote:

Send him back where he camne from and his family too their type isn't welcome no matter waht colour they are.

18 May 2010 03:50p.m.

Gary wrote:

Didnt take long for them to play the race card. If he is innocent they should have nothing to fear.

18 May 2010 01:20p.m.

Lisa wrote:

This case is a classic display of the lack of integrity in the Supre Court. i just wish all the facts were out there for all to see. For some of us who have followed thi scase from day 1 and sat through each hearing - I am just as stunned as the family. We need to get rid of our solicitor general. He is poison and because the lying/lack of integrity is ingrained at the top, it will be difficult to get rid of. This is injustice at its best.

18 May 2010 12:29p.m.

Helen1 wrote:

Our legal system is in disrepair its time for an overhaul. Too much at stake and needless suffering as the exposing loopholes (scars) unveil.

18 May 2010 10:47a.m.

M wrote:

racism is racism. accept it. if its not happening to you then ofcourse its not going to affect you.

18 May 2010 08:55a.m.

RolanTheRat wrote:

Once again the race card is played. anyone who is not white and hates the decision of any court plays this card.

18 May 2010 07:58a.m.

Dave wrote:

Nothing to do with racism, just justice and the supreme court decision speaks for itself. Unreliable hearsay evidence.