As the Joshlin Smith trial enters Day 31, the Western Cape High Court is expected to hear final arguments in the trial-within-a-trial phase, a crucial segment focused on determining the admissibility of confession statements made by co-accused Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn.
What to expect from the Joshlin Smith trial on Day 31
These statements, central to the prosecution’s case, have been challenged by both accused, who claim they were extracted through torture and coercion.
Day 31 is expected to centre on closing arguments in the trial-within-a-trial. The defence, led by Advocates Fannie Harmse and Nobahle Mkabayi, will seek to convince the judge that the accused’s statements were unlawfully obtained and should be excluded from the main trial. The state, on the other hand, will argue that the confessions were made voluntarily and corroborated by other evidence, including medical reports and witness testimony.
Judge Erasmus is expected to deliver a ruling shortly thereafter. The outcome will determine whether these confessions can be used when the main trial resumes.
Readers can follow the live trial coverage today as the courtroom battle intensifies.
Recap of Day 30: Key testimonies and new revelations
Day 30 saw dramatic courtroom exchanges as Steveno van Rhyn returned to the stand to testify about the circumstances under which he allegedly confessed. His testimony painted a picture of intimidation and abuse, including a detailed description of being suspended by his limbs using an aluminium pipe, handcuffed, and interrogated under physical duress.
Van Rhyn testified that a black plastic bag was placed over his head during questioning, a technique he claimed was used each time he denied involvement in Joshlin’s disappearance.
Van Rhyn also stated that following his alleged confession, he and Appollis were taken to the residence of a woman known as Makalima (Phumza Sigaqa), a sangoma allegedly involved in the child’s disappearance.
He claimed that police damaged her property and that she was also assaulted. These claims were introduced to bolster the defence’s argument that the confession process was riddled with abuse and procedural violations.
However, much of the courtroom’s attention turned to Judge Nathan Erasmus, who repeatedly paused proceedings to ensure fairness and clarity during cross-examination.
He reminded both counsel and the court that Van Rhyn, who did not complete Grade 6, may struggle with legal phrasing and should be questioned in simpler terms.
This came after the state’s cross-examination highlighted inconsistencies in Van Rhyn’s narrative, particularly around the plausibility of some physical details in his account of alleged torture.
