The defence continued to scrutinise police conduct in the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday, questioning the approach taken in interviewing one of the accused in the Joshlin Smith case.
Lawyer Nobahle Mkabayi, representing Steveno van Rhyn, challenged the methods used by Sergeant Dawid Johannes Fortuin, a detective with 11 years of experience, during his interview with her client.
Under cross-examination, at court in the White City Multipurpose Centre in Diazville, Saldanha Bay, Fortuin said he could not recall how many interviews he had conducted throughout his career, but maintained it was “a lot” and that interviewing suspects was a standard part of his duties.
Pressed further, Mkabayi asked whether the same method was applied in Van Rhyn’s case.
Fortuin replied: “It depends on the situation. That’s how I determine how to conduct an interview.”
She then turned her attention to the events of February 20, 2024, the day after Joshlin, 6, disappeared from her Middelpos home.
Her mother, Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, boyfriend Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis and Van Rhyn face kidnapping and human trafficking charges.
Van Rhyn had already provided an initial statement yet was later brought to the Saldanha Bay Sea Border offices for a follow-up interview.
Mkabayi questioned why the police didn’t simply interview him at his known physical address.
“When I got to the offices, the accused was already there,” Fortuin explained. “The idea was to get them all together in one place. It’s the police’s choice to conduct interviews wherever they want to.”
He added that the decision to conduct the interview at the Sea Border offices was made by Captain Wesley Lombard.
Mkabayi also challenged whether Van Rhyn had been properly informed of who Fortuin was and why he was being interviewed.
“My client didn’t know you were a police officer because you didn’t introduce yourself,” she said.
Fortuin disagreed, stating he had introduced himself and showed his police identification. “It’s protocol; I always introduce myself,” he said.
But Mkabayi pushed back: “Most of us weren’t there. Why didn’t you tell us in your evidence?”
She also questioned why Fortuin hadn’t stated clearly in his primary testimony why Van Rhyn had been called in.
“I asked him if he knew what happened to Joshlin,” Fortuin said.
“That question alone indicates why he was there.”
When asked why he re-interviewed Van Rhyn after he had already provided a statement, Fortuin said: “Joshlin was still missing, and I believed we needed to speak to him again.”
The line of questioning feeds into the broader trial-within-a-trial currently under way, which is examining whether confessions made by Van Rhyn and Appollis were obtained voluntarily or under duress.
Both men claim they were assaulted and threatened by police before making their statements.