A Gqeberha man who was once hailed the city's perlemoen kingpin, was acquitted of all perlemoen and racketeering charges in the Makhanda High Court on Tuesday.
Julian Brown was acquitted by a full bench of three judges, after appealing against his sentence and conviction of 18 years, which was handed down in the Gqeberha High Court in 2019.
Tuesday's judgment meant that his sentence automatically fell away, rendering Brown a free man.
The victory on appeal also meant that his co-accused, Brandon Turner, and Eugene Victor were acquitted.
Turner and Victor were handed a 15-year sentence.
Brown appealed against Judge Mandela Makaula's decision, through attorney Danie Gouws, after serving two years of his sentence.
He was granted bail of R100 000 pending the outcome of the appeal in June 2021.
Also read: Abalone kingpin Julian Brown wants to appeal his sentence
Brown denied any involvement in the abalone enterprise as alleged by the State and that he was in possession, keeping, controlling, storing, or transporting of abalone.
The appellants pleaded not guilty during their trial and contested the validity of the search warrants obtained by the police.
It was their contestation that none of the search warrants complied with the prescriptive requirements and a trial within a trial was held.
At the end of the trial within a trial, the trial court ruled that the search warrants in respect of four racketeering activities were invalid because of a lack of compliance with the prescriptive requirements.
The ruling further validified the searches in respect of four more racketeering activities and made no ruling on two others.
The appellants argued that the trial court committed an irregularity by not making a determination in terms of Section 35(5) of the Constitution at the end of the trial within a trial.
Section 35(5) governs the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal trials.
The appeal court agreed, stating that the trial court had committed an "irregularity".
The trio further contended that their right to a fair trial was impeded because they "had no idea" what evidence was properly before the court.
"The admissibility of the evidence that was obtained in violation of their constitutional rights had to be tested against the provisions of section 35(5).
"The trial court did not apply its mind to section 35(5) at all. But in its judgment, one can see that it also relied on the evidence that was obtained as a result of the searches in arriving at its conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the charges relevant to this appeal.
"I find that to be an irregularity sufficient to render the trial unfair.
"It was compulsory for the trial court to consider whether the admission of such evidence would not have resulted in an unfair trial or would not be detrimental to the administration of justice," stated the appeal courts judgment.
Gouws said his client cried tears of joy upon hearing that he had won the appeal.
Brown made an entry on his Facebook post stating: "God is on my side all Glory to him" (sic).
Also read: Social media remembers 'perlemoen kingpin in action'
