Closing arguments in the trial of a Simon’s Town businessman accused of assaulting a wild-bee researcher in 2021 were heard in the Simon’s Town Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, August 22.
The State argued that the self-defence conduct of Neel Ramlall, who faces a charge of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm, was not “reasonably proportionate” to what he claimed Jenny Cullinan had done.
He is accused of striking Ms Cullinan multiple times with a stick on the mountain near Cape Point in July 2021 (“Bee researcher’s case postponed again,” Echo, August 25, 2022).
Mr Ramlall earlier testified that Ms Cullinan had been the aggressor, had threatened to search him, swore at him, and had slapped him across the face and he had acted in self defence (“‘She attacked me,’ says accused in bee researcher’s case,” Echo July 27).
State prosecutor Chandré Greene said despite Mr Ramlall agreeing that the stick with a sharpened end could be dangerous, it was his instinct to “motion it against” Ms Cullinan who was an unarmed woman with two small dogs – one sickly in a pouch on her chest.
She described comments that Mr Ramlall had made earlier about the stick being a sword, the blood on Ms Cullinan’s wounds being fake, and that in hindsight he should have poked her eye out as “shocking.”
She said the latter comment had indicated that had he had the opportunity to cause more harm, he would have done so.
“This is indeed not the conduct of an individual who wanted to defend himself, and I will argue that he intended to injure the complainant therefore resulting in her injuries.”
The defence argued that the evidence of Ms Cullinan “as a single witness” should be approached with caution.
A year ago, Ms Cullinan testified that Mr Ramlall had approached her and had told her that he and his wife often frequented the area to “collect plants.”
She testified that while she had had her back to him, her dog had jumped up and as she had turned around, Mr Ramlall had been coming at her with the sharpened stick to stab her in the back of her neck.
The court heard that he had hit her multiple times and that she had blacked out (“Attack traumatised bee researcher, court hears,” Echo, September 22, 2022).
Sonja van den Heever for the defence stated that Ms Cullinan was inconsistent in her testimony and had claimed that she was hit multiple times and in addition to her head injury, dental work had to be done.
She said Ms Cullinan’s injuries had been “over-exaggerated” and she had lied to the court about how she had sustained them.
Ms Cullinan, she said, had provided no proof of the dental injury, and Dr Steven van der Merwe, the third State witness, said there was no proof of multiple blows or dental injuries.
She also said that Dr Van der Merwe, a general practitioner with 27 years of experience, had incorrectly completed Ms Cullinan’s J88 form.
She said Ms Cullinan had also provided no proof to the court that she was a researcher and that she had permission to be in the protected area on the mountain where the alleged incident happened.
She told the court that Mr Ramlall could not be expected to tell the difference between real blood and “fake blood” as he was not present when the photos were taken.
She said it was the defence’s submission that Mr Ramlall had lawfully defended himself with the “least amount of aggression” and that the actions of Ms Cullinan were those of a “white woman” with a “racist mentality” that she could aggressively demand proof from an Indian person that he had permission to be in the area.
Ms Van den Heever said the State had failed to prove that Mr Ramlall’s actions warranted criminal liability and the charges against him should be dismissed.
Magistrate L van Rhoodie will deliver the verdict on Wednesday August 30.
