A wolf in sheep’s clothing who “pounced” on student teachers at a top East London school after giving them alcohol, is how the state described former teacher Neil le Roux, 66, who is on trial on rape, sexual assault and sexual grooming charges in the East London Magistrate’s Court.
State prosecutor Bonginkosi Mafa cross-examined Le Roux yesterday and said he intended to prove “what a manipulative and calculating person” the former Grade 7 teacher was.
Self-assured and composed, Le Roux spent his second day on the stand and once again denied raping and sexually assaulting a then 32-year-old student teacher in his classroom during an evening one-on-one meeting, sexually assaulting another student teacher, aged 29, on the school grounds after a school social, and sexually grooming and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old pupil whose family he had befriended and who regarded him as a father figure.
“Every time you pounced on these girls you put out liquor first,” said Mafa.
He was referring to an incident in which the teacher removed a bottle of honey liqueur from his cubby hole and shared it with one of the student teachers while driving her home after a school Valentine’s Day dance.
The woman testified her mentor then went on to hug her and nibble her ear.
Le Roux admitted to the hug, but denied nibbling her ear, saying he had merely whispered in her ear to thank her for helping with the pupils.
In another incident, in which Le Roux conceded to having sexual contact with another student teacher in his Grade 7 classroom after hours, he offered her champagne before dancing with her and kissing her in the darkened room. He said he invited her to the meeting so that he could get to know her outside of the classroom and discuss her “further professional development”.
Said Mafa: “You’ve got this pattern of offering liquor. Why?” Le Roux replied there was “no cause-and-effect relationship” in producing the alcohol and said there was no ulterior motive in bringing out the champagne.
He said he had switched off the classroom lights to dance with her to a song on his laptop to create a “more sociable atmosphere”.
Asked why he had kissed her and had other sexual contact with her, since he was a married man as well as her professional mentor and she was not his girlfriend, Le Roux said it was the nature of males and females to be attracted to each other and that he did so “for pleasure”.
He insisted the woman did not remove his hands and he had her “tacit agreement” to fondle her.
“You were a mentor to her and were going to write an assessment of her. You were in authority over her,” said Mafa, but Le Roux said the teacher who was shadowing him was not his employee.
Reading out her testimony, Mafa said the woman had got tired of removing Le Roux’s hands from her body and told him she was uncomfortable to which he had responded that she should relax, but Le Roux denied she in any way indicated she was “unhappy or unwilling”.
When Mafa put it to the accused that he was twice the student teacher’s age and that he was married, Le Roux said he had not considered these facts.
Referring to his three kisses with the Grade 7 pupil whom he frequently gave a lift home after extra-mural chess classes, Le Roux said he had labelled them in his mind as the “farewell kiss”, the “congratulatory kiss” and the “accidental kiss”.
While the schoolgirl testified he had put his tongue in her mouth, touched her buttocks during long embraces and placed his hand on her thigh while driving her home, he denied any sexual contact with her and said that the kisses were “innocent” and platonic.
The first kiss took place at the end of the child’s Grade 7 year and was a goodbye kiss, the second took place in his car which he parked in the lot above the aquarium next to the “German Settler Monument” when he congratulated her on acquiring financial support for her academic year, and the third occurred “accidentally” during an extra Afrikaans lesson when he hugged her and she had a sore neck and pulled away, causing him to kiss her on the mouth. It was this embrace that was spotted by a teacher who reported it to the principal.
Le Roux also denied placing his tongue in the girl’s ear.
He said he had licked the tip of her ear as a joke after she said she had heard of “people putting their tongues in other’s ears”.
He denied his metaphor about diving into a deep pool in the forest had any sexual connotation. Asked why he had discussed sexual topics with the girl, he said other conversational subjects had amounted to “over 90%” of their conversations.
“I put it to you that with all the metaphors and comments you made about being her safety net, you were trying to groom her in a sexual nature,” said Mafa.
“You would be 100% wrong,” replied the accused.
“You were so good to this family. You gave lifts, extra classes and fixed their washing machine. Despite this you want the court to believe she bit the hand that helped her?” Le Roux said he did not know what the girl’s “state of mind” was.
“I put it to you that you did rape because there was no consent or relationship between you,” said Mafa.
“You are completely wrong,” said Le Roux. “Everything that happened was completely consensual.”
“You sexually assaulted by nibbling her ear.” Le Roux denied this too.
Le Roux is represented by advocate Niel Schoeman, instructed by attorney Roger Smith.
The trial continues today.
‘WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING’
State prosecutor Bonginkosi Mafa cross-examined Le Roux yesterday and said he intended to prove “what a manipulative and calculating person” the former Grade 7 teacher was.
Self-assured and composed, Le Roux spent his second day on the stand and once again denied raping and sexually assaulting a then 32-year-old student teacher in his classroom during an evening one-on-one meeting, sexually assaulting another student teacher, aged 29, on the school grounds after a school social, and sexually grooming and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old pupil whose family he had befriended and who regarded him as a father figure.
“Every time you pounced on these girls you put out liquor first,” said Mafa.
He was referring to an incident in which the teacher removed a bottle of honey liqueur from his cubby hole and shared it with one of the student teachers while driving her home after a school Valentine’s Day dance.
The woman testified her mentor then went on to hug her and nibble her ear.
Le Roux admitted to the hug, but denied nibbling her ear, saying he had merely whispered in her ear to thank her for helping with the pupils.
In another incident, in which Le Roux conceded to having sexual contact with another student teacher in his Grade 7 classroom after hours, he offered her champagne before dancing with her and kissing her in the darkened room. He said he invited her to the meeting so that he could get to know her outside of the classroom and discuss her “further professional development”.
Said Mafa: “You’ve got this pattern of offering liquor. Why?” Le Roux replied there was “no cause-and-effect relationship” in producing the alcohol and said there was no ulterior motive in bringing out the champagne.
He said he had switched off the classroom lights to dance with her to a song on his laptop to create a “more sociable atmosphere”.
Asked why he had kissed her and had other sexual contact with her, since he was a married man as well as her professional mentor and she was not his girlfriend, Le Roux said it was the nature of males and females to be attracted to each other and that he did so “for pleasure”.
He insisted the woman did not remove his hands and he had her “tacit agreement” to fondle her.
“You were a mentor to her and were going to write an assessment of her. You were in authority over her,” said Mafa, but Le Roux said the teacher who was shadowing him was not his employee.
Reading out her testimony, Mafa said the woman had got tired of removing Le Roux’s hands from her body and told him she was uncomfortable to which he had responded that she should relax, but Le Roux denied she in any way indicated she was “unhappy or unwilling”.
When Mafa put it to the accused that he was twice the student teacher’s age and that he was married, Le Roux said he had not considered these facts.
Referring to his three kisses with the Grade 7 pupil whom he frequently gave a lift home after extra-mural chess classes, Le Roux said he had labelled them in his mind as the “farewell kiss”, the “congratulatory kiss” and the “accidental kiss”.
While the schoolgirl testified he had put his tongue in her mouth, touched her buttocks during long embraces and placed his hand on her thigh while driving her home, he denied any sexual contact with her and said that the kisses were “innocent” and platonic.
The first kiss took place at the end of the child’s Grade 7 year and was a goodbye kiss, the second took place in his car which he parked in the lot above the aquarium next to the “German Settler Monument” when he congratulated her on acquiring financial support for her academic year, and the third occurred “accidentally” during an extra Afrikaans lesson when he hugged her and she had a sore neck and pulled away, causing him to kiss her on the mouth. It was this embrace that was spotted by a teacher who reported it to the principal.
Le Roux also denied placing his tongue in the girl’s ear.
He said he had licked the tip of her ear as a joke after she said she had heard of “people putting their tongues in other’s ears”.
He denied his metaphor about diving into a deep pool in the forest had any sexual connotation. Asked why he had discussed sexual topics with the girl, he said other conversational subjects had amounted to “over 90%” of their conversations.
“I put it to you that with all the metaphors and comments you made about being her safety net, you were trying to groom her in a sexual nature,” said Mafa.
“You would be 100% wrong,” replied the accused.
“You were so good to this family. You gave lifts, extra classes and fixed their washing machine. Despite this you want the court to believe she bit the hand that helped her?” Le Roux said he did not know what the girl’s “state of mind” was.
“I put it to you that you did rape because there was no consent or relationship between you,” said Mafa.
“You are completely wrong,” said Le Roux. “Everything that happened was completely consensual.”
“You sexually assaulted by nibbling her ear.” Le Roux denied this too.
Le Roux is represented by advocate Niel Schoeman, instructed by attorney Roger Smith.
The trial continues today.
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