Advocate Aradhana Heeramun argued on Thursday that the State has met the legal burden of proof in the trial-within-a-trial currently unfolding in the Western Cape High Court, sitting in the White City Multipurpose Centre.
The State is seeking to have the confessions of two of the accused admitted as evidence in the main trial.
The trial-within-a-trial was triggered after accused Steveno “Steffie” van Rhyn and Jacquen “Boeta” Appollis alleged that their confessions were obtained under duress, following incidents of alleged torture and police brutality.
The court has since heard a wide range of evidence, including testimony from police officers, medical professionals, and the accused themselves, to determine whether the confessions were freely and voluntarily made.
The case relates to the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith, who went missing from her Middelpos home in Saldanha Bay on 19 February 2024.
Her mother, Racquel “Kelly” Smith, initially told police she had left Joshlin in the care of Appollis, her boyfriend. Accused Van Rhyn, Appollis, and Kelly have all since been charged with kidnapping and trafficking in persons for exploitation.
A fourth accused, Lourentia Lombaard, was initially arrested but later released.
On Thursday, Heeramun began the State’s closing arguments in the trial-within-a-trial, asserting that officers Captain Wesley Lombard and Sergeant Dawid Johannes Fortuin were credible and consistent witnesses whose testimony was not shaken during cross-examination.
“The honesty of Sergeant Fortuin must be noted,” Heeramun told the court, referencing how Fortuin described scuff marks that he said would only become visible after 24 hours, an explanation she said aligned with medical reports.
“The independent evidence of the doctors makes it highly improbable that the accused were assaulted in the manner they described,” she argued.
“If the injuries were as severe as claimed, the doctors would have expected fractures or far more serious trauma.”
She dismissed the accused’s claims of being beaten and suffocated as “highly improbable,” and said the shifting nature of their testimonies undermined their credibility.
“What we were told in their plea explanations changed when instructions were given to State witnesses. Then, when they took the stand, the story developed even more,” she said.
“If what you are saying is the truth, there would be no reason for the evidence to change.”
Heeramun went so far as to say the credibility of accused 1 (Appollis) and 2 (Van Rhyn) had been "shredded".
However, she distinguished one defence witness as honest, although she argued that her evidence carried little weight.
“She admitted she only saw Mr Appollis briefly before he disappeared from her view. She could not say what happened to him after that.”
Heeramun also highlighted that both accused were informed of their rights multiple times, five times in the case of van Rhyn and at least three times for Appollis, arguing that it could not be claimed they were unaware of their legal protections.
The defence is expected to deliver its arguments before Judge Nathan Erasmus rules on the admissibility of the confessions.