- Police ignored clear evidence and arrested the wrong man instead of the drunk driver, the court finds.
- The blood test came back at zero, and the case was eventually dropped for lack of evidence.
- Court orders Minister of Police to pay damages for unlawful arrest, wrongful prosecution, trauma and legal costs.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ruled that police officers acted with malice when they arrested and prosecuted Hendrik Lodewyk Oosthuizen for drunk driving, despite clear evidence that he had not been drinking.
The court found that the arrest was not only unlawful but deliberately wrong, leaving Oosthuizen humiliated, frightened and traumatised.
It all started in Pretoria East on Lynnwood Road near Boschkop, where a collision set off a chain of events that would end at Boschkop Police Station and later at Mamelodi Hospital.
Oosthuizen had gone to the police station of his own accord to report the accident, only to be accused, detained and charged. His blood alcohol test later came back at 0.0 percent and the case against him was eventually dropped.
Parties and background
Oosthuizen brought a claim against the Minister of Police for malicious arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. The Minister admitted the arrest was unlawful but denied that the officers had acted with malice.
The incident began with a collision on Lynnwood Road at the Boschkop Road turnoff at around 9pm. Oosthuizen was driving with his wife and a passenger when an oncoming vehicle swerved into his lane and hit him as he slowed to turn.
The other driver, identified only as Bierman in the judgment, tried to leave the scene before eventually stopping. Oosthuizen testified that Bierman “stumbled from the vehicle, was clearly under the influence of alcohol, smelled of liquor and was struggling to walk” and was seen falling over as he tried to sit against a nearby wall.
Police arrived and took Bierman to the police station. Oosthuizen and his companions followed shortly afterwards to report the accident, as they were required to do within 24 hours.
What unfolded at the police station
At Boschkop Police Station, what should have been a straightforward reporting process quickly turned into a confrontation. Officers in the charge office were unwilling to help, and things got worse when a senior officer walked in and started accusing Oosthuizen of being drunk.
Van der Westhuizen recalled being told, “You are going to sleep in jail tonight,” even though they insisted Oosthuizen had not had a drop to drink.
Oosthuizen offered to take a breathalyser test to prove his innocence, but the request was brushed aside. The officers simply relied on their own unsupported claims.
Judge S Potterill found that “there was no reasonable and probable cause to do so” and added that the suspicion of drunkenness “is not supported by a single fact, and is therefore arbitrary.”
Arrest, detention and treatment
Oosthuizen was held at the police station and then taken in the back of a police van to Mamelodi Hospital for blood testing. The journey itself raised serious concerns in court, with evidence of reckless driving and officers refusing to let his family check on him.
Judge Potterill said, “Oosthuizen was forced back into the van while the visibly drunk driver was handled far more gently.”
At the hospital, blood samples were taken several hours after the accident. Even the attending doctor said Oosthuizen did not appear to be under the influence. Despite this, he was kept overnight.
He was later moved to Welbekend Police Station in the early hours of the morning and only released on bail later that day after spending the night behind bars.
Court findings on malicious arrest
The court found that the arrest was carried out with an improper motive and intent to harm. Judge Potterill concluded that “the action of arresting was done with animo iniuriandi.”
The judgment made clear that the officers had not even been at the accident scene and had ignored evidence pointing directly to the actually drunk driver.
Malicious prosecution and failure of discretion
The court also found that the prosecution was just as flawed. The investigating officer pushed ahead with charges even though he acknowledged there was no evidence to support them.
Under cross-examination, the officer admitted that “there was no preliminary evidence” yet still went ahead with the charge.
Judge Potterill criticised this approach and warned that people could be charged “as a matter of procedure” without any proper evidence.
The prosecution was eventually dropped after the matter was not enrolled in court because of insufficient evidence.
Damages and impact
The court awarded Oosthuizen R150 000 for malicious arrest and detention and R85 000 for malicious prosecution. The Minister of Police was also ordered to pay R20 000 in legal costs and R7 453.20 for medical expenses related to psychological treatment.
Judge Potterill emphasised, “The importance of the right to personal liberty and the seriousness thereof” must be reflected in the damages awarded.
The court also awarded costs on an attorney and client scale, finding that the way the matter was defended reflected bad faith. Oosthuizen told the court that the ordeal left him traumatised and afraid to interact with police.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
