On Thursday, Western Cape High Court Judge Nathan Erasmus ruled that the statements made by Accused 1, Jacquen Appollis, and Accused 2, Steveno van Rhyn, may be used as evidence in the main trial relating to the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith.
What the judge ruled
These statements were made to police officers during the early days of the investigation.
The defence had argued that they should be excluded from the trial because they were allegedly obtained through torture and improper police procedures. Both defence lawyers, Advocate Fannie Harmse and Advocate Nobahle Mkabayi, claimed their clients’ rights were violated and that the statements were rehearsed or dictated by police.
Judge Erasmus dismissed these arguments. He explained that his ruling is interlocutory, meaning it is temporary and part of the broader trial.
It is not the final word on the matter but allows the main trial to continue with the statements included as evidence. The judge also clarified that he would not provide reasons for the decision now but might refer to it again later in the trial.
He made it clear that the court’s role at this point was to determine if the statements were admissible, not whether they are true or false.
According to South African law, a statement can only be used in a trial if it is both relevant and obtained legally. The judge said that, based on the evidence provided, the prosecution had met the legal requirements.
Judge Erasmus ruled:
- The statement by Jacquen Appollis to Colonel Pretorius on 5 March 2024 is admissible and can be used in the main trial.
- The statement by Steveno van Rhyn to Captain Seekoie on the same day is also admissible and can be used against him in court.
Although he did not refer to them as “confessions” to avoid suggesting a conclusion about their content, the judge confirmed both can now be considered in the trial.
What happens next in the Joshlin Smith trial
The case has now been postponed to Tuesday, 22 April 2025. On that day, the prosecution is expected to present a roadmap, outlining how they intend to proceed in the main trial.
This includes which witnesses they plan to call and how they plan to move forward with the case.
The judge reminded the State that it has a constitutional duty to prosecute the case thoroughly and quickly. He also urged both sides to work towards finalising the trial as soon as possible.
The defence will have time to review the State’s plan and provide feedback on how they will respond. The court has made it clear that it does not want unnecessary delays and expects both sides to cooperate in bringing the trial to a close.