Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) head Robert McBride is expected to appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Monday for allegedly assaulting his daughter.
McBride has been charged with child abuse, and an alternative charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, after he allegedly assaulted one of his daughters while they were driving in a car.
He was previously released on bail of R10 000, on the condition that he did not contact any of the witnesses, which included the daughter he allegedly assaulted and the younger daughter who he will now be able to see.
He broke his silence after the news broke in August, saying he was being investigated for the assault of a minor child.
“I admit that I admonished one of my daughters, whom I love very much,” said McBride at the time.
He said that he had become concerned about his daughter’s school marks and “somewhat rebellious” behaviour, and had admonished her, but never assaulted her.
During his previous appearance, the court amended his bail conditions.
It allowed him to spend the festive season with one of his daughters, who was a potential State witness in the child abuse case against him.
The State did not oppose the amendment, however it asked that it come with the limitation that McBride may not discuss the matter before court with his daughter.
McBride then opposed the limitation, saying that the State had still not obtained a witness statement from the youngest daughter, despite the case being opened more than three months ago.
Magistrate Ignatius du Preez found in favour of McBride’s application, amending bail conditions to exclude one of his daughters listed on the witness list.
He granted the amendment, saying that it was in the interests of justice and fairness, and that it would not be detrimental to the prosecution or the case if the application is granted.
Also read: McBride wants speedy trial in alleged assault case involving daughter
Du Preez further said that there would be no limitations to the access granted to McBride and questioned why the State had not yet obtained a witness statement from this particular daughter.
“The court is not convinced that a limitation with access to [one of McBride’s daughters] is fair to Mr McBride,” said Du Preez at the time.
Du Preez also said that the prosecutor could give no reason as to why a statement had not yet been obtained and could also not give an explanation for the delay.
“If the prosecution was serious about this witness, they would have obtained a statement by now.”[Source: News24]