WHILE detained in a police holding cell an arrested person got the opportunity to take a bath in his own home, courtesy of the investigating officer, but the policeman had to be paid R350 for the privilege.
The bath-time break and other alleged indiscriminate acts were what warrant officer Claude Peter Ince had to answer for when he testified at the Durban Specialised Commercial Crimes Court this week.
Ince, who has been a policeman for 32 years was charged with two counts of extortion.
It was alleged that in March 2015, Ince, confirming bail of R500 for a man charged with shoplifting, apparently collected a further R2 500 from him, having promised to make the case against him disappear.
The man had stolen an item costing R100.
Count two relates to Ince’s alleged promise to provide the same favour to another accused in 2017, who he was acquainted with for more than 30 years. On this occasion he required payment in the form of two Rolex watches and R10 000 in cash.
The same accused, who faced fraud allegations, also enjoyed a hot bath at home for the additional fee.
The accused, who turned complainant, testified previously that in April 2017 he paid Ince R2 000 and R350 for a bath.
A police sting operation was set up a month later and the complainant called Ince to his home to collect R5 000.
Once Ince took the money, police from the anti-corruption unit pounced on him.
Magistrate Dawn Somaroo presided over Ince’s matter.
Senior State advocate Ranjini Govender prosecuted the matter.
Attorney Shireen Soobrathi and Advocate Shane Matthews were Ince’s representatives.
Ince, based at SAPS Bellair, said bail money in the shoplifting matter was paid to another policeman and denied requesting the further R2 500.
The fraud matter was investigated by Ince.
It was alleged that the complainant committed fraud during the sale of a house and he worked with a pastor.
But before the complainant was arrested, Ince told the court he lent him R10 000.
“I’ve known him since 1991, we had cordial relations and he lived about 150 metres from the police station.
“We saw each other often,” said Ince.
In July 2016, the complainant and another friend visited Ince at his home.
“He told me he needed to borrow R10 000 and he would repay me by September that year.”
Ince agreed.
He then became the detective handling the complainant’s fraud matter. The complainant was arrested and held at Bellair.
Ince took the complainant’s warning statement, he also required his ID number to profile him and contact details for the pastor.
It was decided to take the complainant home to acquire the required information.
Ince said the complainant had psoriasis, which was aggravated by the blanket in the holding cell.
“While we were at his home he asked me if he could take a bath and apply ointment on his skin.”
The policeman obtained the complainant’s ID number but not the pastor’s number.
He denied charging money for the bath or to secure bail for the complainant.
The matter against the complainant was withdrawn by the appointed prosecutor.
At the time, Ince was on leave. When he returned, he resumed investigations.
Ince denied threatening to rearrest the complainant and knew nothing about the two watches.
He said the complainant failed to honour his loan repayment promise and he had only been paid back R2 000. Therefore, he had largely given up on receiving repayment of the full amount.
However, when the complainant called him to his home to collect R5 000 on May 27, 2017, he responded because he believed it was a repayment towards the loan, but walked into the trap set for him.
Govender refuted Ince’s version and said you “rushed off because you wanted to extort money.”
She was at odds with how a policeman with his experience relied solely on the complainant to get the pastor’s details and taking him home to get his ID details didn’t wash with her.
“There were other skills you could have used to verify the details of someone who you knew very well.
“It is very unusual for a policeman to take an accused person home for a shower.”
She questioned his decision to investigate a matter involving someone well known to him, why he did not declare that to his commanding officer and the fact that the complainant borrowed R10 000 from him.
Govender said the commander had previously testified that Ince would have not been assigned the matter had she known that.
The prosecutor reminded the court that the man accused of shoplifting pointed Ince out as the man who took R2 500 from him and accused him of misleading the court.
Ince denied all the allegations, said the shoplifter lied, and emphasised that procedure had to be followed when verifying an accused person’s details. Therefore, he took the complainant home for the outstanding information and while there, he agreed to let him take a bath.
SUNDAY TRIBUNE