A schoolgirl who was allegedly groomed and sexually assaulted by her former Grade 7 teacher, Neil le Roux, broke down in sobs in the East London Magistrate’s Court while being cross-examined.
She testified how he had sexually violated her during an extra Afrikaans lesson at a top East London school.
The eloquent teenager, who is now 17, was cross-examined in-camera by defence advocate Neil Schoeman. She said Le Roux, 67, began sexually grooming her when she was just 13 and in Grade 7.
She said he kissed her, hugged her inappropriately, licked her ear and touched her thigh over a period of two years during which time she felt manipulated both emotionally and physically. The incidents allegedly took place when they were alone in his classroom, in Le Roux’s car when he gave her lifts from school and at her home between 2014 and 2016.
Last year the court, presided over by magistrate Ignatius Kitching, heard that the alleged abuse ended in April when a teacher walked past Le Roux’s classroom after hours and saw him embracing someone.
Once he had been hauled before the school’s principal, Le Roux named the girl and said he had been giving her extra lessons. After informing the child’s mother, the principal told him serious allegations had been levelled against him and gave him leave of absence. Le Roux resigned a few days later.
Le Roux has been charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 32-year-old student teacher, sexually assaulting a 29-year-old student teacher, both of whom he mentored, and sexually assaulting and sexually grooming the young girl. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Yesterday, the former teacher took copious notes in an exam pad and sipped on apple juice while his counsel cross-examined the girl who, composed after a short adjournment, stood up to Schoeman’s questioning with measured, considered answers. Once or twice she faltered, fighting back tears.
She said she realised her feelings of discomfort when Le Roux touched her and tried to manipulate her emotionally were justified when she spoke to her mother, psychologists and the police.
“When I became aware of what the law says is legal to do with children I realised Mr Le Roux had been violating me for quite some time. I was finally able to understand why I was uncomfortable.
“It was because I was right. Boundaries should exist between teachers and pupils, between adults and children.”
When Schoeman asked what boundary Le Roux had crossed, the girl replied: “I don’t think its okay for 65-year-old male teachers to show overt physical affection to 13-year-olds by hugging and touching. I don’t think it’s acceptable for adults to touch my thigh or for 65-year-old men to kiss 13-year-olds.” She testified she had been angry.
“I thought of returning to his class and saying I was angry with him for stealing my first kiss, but I was frightened that he would say I was being irrational and putting up boundaries.”
She said Le Roux, who told her she was a gifted pupil, would tell her she was “stiff” when he hugged her and touched her bottom.
“He would tell me to melt and that I was being too stiff and not relaxing in his arms.”
When Schoeman said Le Roux had hugged other children at the school, she said: “Most, but he would hug me with a hand under my blazer and his head on my chest.”
She said once she left primary school, the teacher would give her lifts home from high school on some afternoons and place his hand on her thigh while he drove.
She said the teacher would at times come into her house after driving her home and hug her there. She described the hugs as “long embraces with his hands on my butt”.
Did she regard it as inappropriate that he hugged her, Schoeman asked.
“I don’t know how to describe how trapped I felt; like I didn’t have a choice. It had been so long he had been doing stuff like that.
“It wasn’t like I wanted him to hold me, but if I didn’t let him he’d be angry at me or disappointed.”
When Schoeman asked if she thought Le Roux was simply caring for her, the girl said: “I don’t think that with his advances and twisted thinking it was a very good sort of caring, sir.”
At Schoeman’s suggestion that her teacher had been mentoring her, she replied:
“By sticking his tongue down my throat? That is not the kind of mentoring I need or want.”
On the third occasion she did not open her jaw. “I did not want to feel his tongue in my mouth.”
The girl recalled how Le Roux had psychologically manipulated her by coaxing her to “open up” to him and not be afraid to “connect” with him. “At times he made me feel sad that I was being a scared little girl, not a woman as he said I was.” The cross-examination continues today. — barbarah@dispatch.co.za
Girl, 17, testifies against teacher
She testified how he had sexually violated her during an extra Afrikaans lesson at a top East London school.
The eloquent teenager, who is now 17, was cross-examined in-camera by defence advocate Neil Schoeman. She said Le Roux, 67, began sexually grooming her when she was just 13 and in Grade 7.
She said he kissed her, hugged her inappropriately, licked her ear and touched her thigh over a period of two years during which time she felt manipulated both emotionally and physically. The incidents allegedly took place when they were alone in his classroom, in Le Roux’s car when he gave her lifts from school and at her home between 2014 and 2016.
Last year the court, presided over by magistrate Ignatius Kitching, heard that the alleged abuse ended in April when a teacher walked past Le Roux’s classroom after hours and saw him embracing someone.
Once he had been hauled before the school’s principal, Le Roux named the girl and said he had been giving her extra lessons. After informing the child’s mother, the principal told him serious allegations had been levelled against him and gave him leave of absence. Le Roux resigned a few days later.
Le Roux has been charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 32-year-old student teacher, sexually assaulting a 29-year-old student teacher, both of whom he mentored, and sexually assaulting and sexually grooming the young girl. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Yesterday, the former teacher took copious notes in an exam pad and sipped on apple juice while his counsel cross-examined the girl who, composed after a short adjournment, stood up to Schoeman’s questioning with measured, considered answers. Once or twice she faltered, fighting back tears.
She said she realised her feelings of discomfort when Le Roux touched her and tried to manipulate her emotionally were justified when she spoke to her mother, psychologists and the police.
“When I became aware of what the law says is legal to do with children I realised Mr Le Roux had been violating me for quite some time. I was finally able to understand why I was uncomfortable.
“It was because I was right. Boundaries should exist between teachers and pupils, between adults and children.”
When Schoeman asked what boundary Le Roux had crossed, the girl replied: “I don’t think its okay for 65-year-old male teachers to show overt physical affection to 13-year-olds by hugging and touching. I don’t think it’s acceptable for adults to touch my thigh or for 65-year-old men to kiss 13-year-olds.” She testified she had been angry.
“I thought of returning to his class and saying I was angry with him for stealing my first kiss, but I was frightened that he would say I was being irrational and putting up boundaries.”
She said Le Roux, who told her she was a gifted pupil, would tell her she was “stiff” when he hugged her and touched her bottom.
“He would tell me to melt and that I was being too stiff and not relaxing in his arms.”
When Schoeman said Le Roux had hugged other children at the school, she said: “Most, but he would hug me with a hand under my blazer and his head on my chest.”
She said once she left primary school, the teacher would give her lifts home from high school on some afternoons and place his hand on her thigh while he drove.
She said the teacher would at times come into her house after driving her home and hug her there. She described the hugs as “long embraces with his hands on my butt”.
Did she regard it as inappropriate that he hugged her, Schoeman asked.
“I don’t know how to describe how trapped I felt; like I didn’t have a choice. It had been so long he had been doing stuff like that.
“It wasn’t like I wanted him to hold me, but if I didn’t let him he’d be angry at me or disappointed.”
When Schoeman asked if she thought Le Roux was simply caring for her, the girl said: “I don’t think that with his advances and twisted thinking it was a very good sort of caring, sir.”
At Schoeman’s suggestion that her teacher had been mentoring her, she replied:
“By sticking his tongue down my throat? That is not the kind of mentoring I need or want.”
On the third occasion she did not open her jaw. “I did not want to feel his tongue in my mouth.”
The girl recalled how Le Roux had psychologically manipulated her by coaxing her to “open up” to him and not be afraid to “connect” with him. “At times he made me feel sad that I was being a scared little girl, not a woman as he said I was.” The cross-examination continues today. — barbarah@dispatch.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos