The presiding officer in the Joshlin Smith trial concluded Wednesday’s proceedings by confirming that judgment would be handed down on Friday. 

Judge Nathan Erasmus announced this after the closing arguments were completed by the parties.

The six-year-old girl went missing from her Middelpos, Saldanha Bay, home on February 19, 2024.

Her mother, Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, her boyfriend, Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis, and friend Steveno ‘Steffie’ van Rhyn were arrested two weeks later and charged with kidnapping and human trafficking, which they pleaded not guilty to.

Judge Erasmus said he expects many people would be making their way to Saldanha Bay to the Western Cape High Court sitting in the White City Multipurpose Centre in Diazville.

The hall has been accommodating the court since the beginning of the trial on March 3.

Judge Erasmus said: “I take it there will be a lot of people. There will be logistical arrangements, especially if the court is full. I’ll be making a ruling on the seating arrangements.”

He said he also expected politicians to be at court but would not make special arrangements for them, but would only prioritise the accused and the victims’ family members.

The trial, which has gripped the community since Joshlin disappeared from Middelpos in February 2024, entered its final phase when both the State and defence concluded their cases a week ago.

During the closing arguments, Joshlin’s mom, Kelly’s lawyer, said it is unlikely that she confided in witnesses about any plan to traffic her six-year-old daughter, a central allegation in the State’s case.

Delivering closing arguments, defence lawyer Rinesh Sivnarain launched a scathing attack on the credibility of the State’s key witness, Lourentia ‘Renz’ Lombaard.

“All the incidents that were testified about, by Ms Lombaard as well as the accused, happened under the influence of drugs,” Sivnarain told the court. 

He reminded Judge Erasmus that Lombaard had admitted to using methamphetamine two to three times a day in February 2024 and had been a habitual user for 16 years. 

“Even when explaining discrepancies in her confession, she claimed her mental faculties were impaired. She confirmed she was unreliable when she consumed drugs.”

He argued that time discrepancies in her account were not merely minor inconsistencies but serious credibility issues. 

“There could be discrepancies in the timeline, and it came out that most of the people didn’t have a sense of time — no one wore timepieces. But Ms Lombaard’s conduct goes beyond that,” he said.

Sivnarain characterised her as an opportunist who exploited Kelly Smith for food and favours, and ultimately turned on her to save herself when legal consequences loomed. 

“She admitted she was promised money by Kelly. She went along with that. She was going to gain — and she kept quiet. But when she realised the money wasn’t coming and she was going to prison, she turned. She would’ve said anything to distance herself.”

He added: “She lied even when given the last opportunity to speak the truth. She is a single witness. The cautionary rule applies. Her evidence is so poor, it cannot be relied upon.”

Sivnarain dismissed her story about hearing a conversation through a broken window, in which Kelly allegedly discussed selling Joshlin, as fabricated. 

“She couldn’t have heard it. She must have been present. That story was made up.”

He told the court that the State had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and said there was no corroborating evidence from Accused 1 or 2 (Appollis and Van Rhyn) to support Lombaard’s version. 

“There is no common purpose. If you consider the evidence alone, it is not just weak — it is dangerous to convict someone on that.”

Responding in the State’s closing argument, prosecutor Advocate Zelda Swanepoel conceded that Lombaard was not a perfect witness. 

“I concede she wasn’t the best witness. There can be criticism. But the test is whether the evidence is so bad that no court would believe it — and that is not the case here.”

Swanepoel said the State’s case did not rest solely on Lombaard’s version.

“If it had only been Ms Lombaard’s evidence, that would be a problem. But it isn’t. We’ve put the puzzle together piece by piece.”

She said both Accused 1 and 2 told Kelly to tell the truth. “Three people knew the plan, and they all pointed fingers at Kelly. They said: ‘You know what you did.’”

Swanepoel also defended the credibility of State witness Steven Coetzee, who testified that Kelly told him Middelpos would become “like a movie scene”. 

She described Coetzee as “an excellent witness” and said his testimony was supported by reports and his conduct.

“There is no way that he made this up. The only one who wanted fame was Kelly Smith. She told people: ‘Joshlin made me famous.’”

Judge Erasmus interjected during the argument: “This case is not about where Joshlin is. It’s about the accused being charged with criminal offences, and the State bears the onus to prove that.”

Swanepoel countered: “If everything is considered, there is a call for her (Kelly) to answer.”

mandilakhe.tshwete@inl.co.za 

Source link