John-Ross Crossbery Henderson will appeal the court’s decision to dismiss his second bail application. Picture Sandi Kwon Hoo
Former police officer and security company director John-Ross Crossbery Henderson, 38, was denied bail for the second time in the Kimberley magistrate’s court on December 18.
He was charged for the murder of Jayson Afrique and the attempted murder of his wife Micayla.
Jayson was fatally injured when multiple shots were fired at their vehicle, as the couple drove into the driveway of their home in New Park on July 31.
Magistrate Jan Brits indicated that the accused only placed himself on the scene during his second bail application, when he mentioned that he had a discussion with the owner of Hardcore Security and Micayla’s father at the crime scene.
He added that the state had a prima facie case against the accused, based on the cellphone that was collected at the scene.
“The accused proceeded to stage the theft of his cellphone one and a half hours later. No explanation was offered as to how the cellphone ended up at the crime scene.
“The accused testified that he was standing about 17 metres away from the vehicle when he supposedly arrived on the scene after hearing about the shooting on a security hand held radio.”
He found it improbable that the cellphone could have fallen out of his pocket and “travelled” to the motor vehicle.
“The dash cameras that were apparently removed from the Hilux bakkie, amounts to hearsay evidence and does not carry any weight. According to the investigating officer Johanna Lotter, the crime scene was secured and processed by police officials.”
Brits believed that the hot dog containers and Coke can that the accused had observed next to the vehicle “could have been blown by the wind”.
State prosecutor Kago Barnett believed that the accused was being dishonest to the court.
“He claimed in his first bail application that he did not know any witnesses. Now we hear that he knew the police officers who were on the scene and that he had a conversation with the father of the wife of the deceased on the scene of the crime. The accused seems to know the whereabouts and movements of the surviving complainant.”
She pointed to the degree of violence that was used in the commission of the crime.
“We should not lose sight of the fact that a life was brutally lost, where multiple gunshots were fired and 14 injuries were sustained by the deceased. The wife of the deceased continues to fear for her life. It is untrue that she relocated to Cape Town.”
She added that as a former police officer, the accused had the potential to interfere in the investigation and with state witnesses.
“The accused is linked to the scene by a crucial piece of evidence where his cellphone with only his fingerprints was found at the crime scene.”
Barnett explained that it was a “chaotic scene” where approximate times were placed on the record.
Legal representative for the accused Herholdt Robertson questioned what had transpired during the time lapse when the shooting took place and the arrival of the police on the scene.
“My client’s cellphone was supposedly picked up at 8.30pm while the shooting happened at 8.40 pm. Micayla’s father arrived on the scene at 8.43pm. There is no record of when the gunshots were fired or when the police and ambulance were called. According to police media statements the incident happened at 9pm.”
He pointed out that it was the duty of the state to inform all interested parties before the vehicle was released.
“The vehicle is an exhibit that needs to be inspected, should the matter go to trial.
“The haste to return the vehicle to the owners creates suspicion. The trajectory of the bullets, damages caused and bullet holes cannot be examined because the vehicle has been repaired.”
He claimed that more than ten bullets were fired at the vehicle, where some bullets were fired from inside the cab.
Robertson stated that the security company was sold while the wife of the deceased had relocated to Cape Town.
“This removes any perceived threat to her life.”
He pointed out that a third investigating officer had now been assigned to the investigation.
He indicated that they would appeal the decision of the court’s dismissal to grant his client bail.
The matter was postponed until January 13.