Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FORMER TENNIS PLAYER Bob Hewitt has been sentenced to six years in prison for raping and assaulting underage girls he coached in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s.
Judge Bert Bam sentenced Hewitt to eight years in jail for two counts of rape, with two years suspended. He also sentenced Hewitt to two years in prison for a third charge of sexual assault.
The three sentences will be served at the same time, meaning Hewitt (75) should spend up to six years in prison.
The retired doubles tennis champion had pleaded not guilty to all charges, which were brought against him by three women in 2013.
Hewitt, who is Australian, won numerous Grand Slam doubles titles during his career in the 1960s and 1970s. His name was removed from the International Tennis Hall of Fame following the allegations.
“The effective period of imprisonment is six years,” Bam told the High Court in Pretoria after delivering separate sentences for the three crimes.
Justice must be seen to be done, even to ageing offenders and even after the expiration of many years after the crime.
Bam said that if Hewitt had been 50 years old when he was convicted he would have been sentenced to 20 years in jail, adding that Hewitt was solely to blame for his fate.
The judge criticised Hewitt for not showing any remorse during the trial and ordered him to pay about $8,500 to state-run campaigns against sexual violence.
During the sentencing hearing Hewitt’s wife Delaille had begged the court to show mercy and not award a custodial sentence, according to the BBC.
Hewitt achieved seven titles in singles and 65 in doubles. He won all Grand Slam doubles titles, both in men’s and mixed doubles (Wimbledon, Australian Open, French Open, US Open).
- with reporting from AFP
Age should not come into it. If you done the crime then do the time….
I said exactly this about another criminal the other day. Point is he lived in comfort on the outside for the 20 years they would have given him. Therefore, how can they reduce based on age? Basically a reward for not being caught sooner.
Now ye know why parents always go to training and G.A.A matches …..
Not saying anything suspicious happens but being a more parent friendly organisation with many parents having played for the clubs there is very little room for any harm to occur !
I wonder if he’s any relation to Harry Hewitt …
Wanna know the funny thing? The No campaign would have rather put two adoptee girls with this guy and his wife than two 100k income married guys because ..he’s male and she’s female…just goes to show what utter nonsense that argument is and why the well being of the child, and quality of the parents, not the parents gender or sexuality, should be the determining factor.
I’m fairly sure that no prospective parent of either gender or sexuality is going to tell the adoption people that they are paedophiles.So your argument is itself utter nonsense.
Idiot.
You’re missing my point Brian, their argument is that the decision should be based on gender, and this illustrates that you can’t tell jack about someone just based on their gender. Theyv’e been arguing this entire time that the gender of the parent is the key determinant in how well the child will do under a prospective parent and this shows that’s utter nonsense.
Gay guys earn 100k per year? Is that across the board and Is that the starting wage.
Again missing my point.
Forget about thumbs and actually listen to my argument. Their argument this entire time has been gender gender gender, that’s the key thing in quality of a parent is gender balance, that the other factors are all below that.
So we have a situation now where you don’t know what he really is, but if you have a choice of two sets of parents to give the kid to and both were equal on every other factor, which happens a lot. They would break that tie based on the persons gender, which in this case would give the kids to a monster, it’s a stupid factor to consider
No Ryan, you don’t seem to get that your point is moot in the context of this news story. But you still keep going.
I’ll keep going because my voice is as free as yours and I’ll make any damn argument I like.
It’s not at all moot, it’s an illustration of why the argument is stupid. They’ve based their entire argument around the notion that gender balance is the central factor in determining parental quality and suitability. So were we to make a decision on giving kids to a single adoptive mother or a gender balanced couple in this case, if we were to decide based on gender balance, we’d be giving the kids to a child molester.
It illustrates how stupid it would be to base these decisions on gender, that’s the most un-controversial argument on earth.
I’m sitting here listening to their bs week in week out about the ”dangers” of same sex couples while cases like this roll off the conveyer belt without the slighest comment from them.
Sorry buy that’s crap.
Regardless of the gender of the parents. If there were accusations of sexual assault against children made against a party to adoption nobody, not even the headbanger bigots on the no side of the marriage referendum debate, would be suggesting that children should be given to the couple in question.
Claiming such is the same level of hysterical nonsense the likes of Kate Bopp gets up to.
Ryan, are you saying that same sex couples pose less of a risk than opposite couples? The No argument from what I can see is based on the “traditional” family unit upbringing and has nothing to do with the potential for child abuse by any type of couple.
“Bam said that if Hewitt had been 50 years old when he was convicted he would have been sentenced to 20 years in jail, adding that Hewitt was solely to blame for his fate.”
Then he ought to have been sentenced to 20 years. He’s had 30 years of freedom in spite of the crimes he committed while the young girls had 30 years of living with damage done to them by a man who was not punished for his crimes.
New balls in prison.
Death by means of torture, 6 years is nothing
Ryan anth you’re off point with your argument. If I had a child for adoption my 1st choice would be to a straight COUPLE (purely for balance). I don’t know what I’d decide between a single woman or gay (either male or female couple). I’m not a homophobe I’d just want a strong male/female balance for my child.
Even at 75 he’ll get more love and deuce in prison than he ever got on the tennis court.
Oh please men show you are safe to be near. I am older and slow, but oldies are raped too. I lose my faith in any men as I constantly am bombarded with images of rape and murder. It is terribly distressing for women.
Yes, I know decent men must be at their wits end with the vile creatures they are associated with and fed up with wary looks and women keeping distance quite a lot.
have your say