State Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel on Wednesday dismissed Steveno 'Steffie' Van Rhyn and his co-accused, Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis's claims of assault and torture by the police during the investigation into Joshlin Smith's disappearance.
Swanepoel said their injuries could not have been inflicted by the police.
Van Rhyn and Appollis, testified that they were physically assaulted and tortured by police who coerced them into implicating themselves, and others, in the disappearance of the six-year-old.
The child went missing from her Middelpos home in Saldanha Bay on February 19, 2024.
Van Rhyn, Appollis, Joshlin’s mother, Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, were arrested on March 5, 2024 and all pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping and human trafficking.
Van Rhyn and Appollis claim they were beaten, handcuffed, and hung with an aluminium rod between their knees and arms, while being pressured to confess and implicate a woman living near Appollis’ home.
Van Rhyn told the court he was picked up by plainclothes officers while hitchhiking with a friend after leaving Vredenburg Magistrates’ Court.
He was driven to Jacobsbaai beach, where he was allegedly threatened and assaulted before being transported to the Sea Border Police Unit offices in Saldanha.
“I didn’t know who they were, but I assumed they were police officers when I saw one of them with a gun in a holster,” he testified. “I was taken to the beach. I was made to lie on my stomach, and my testicles were pinched. I was smacked around.”
Van Rhyn further alleged that at the offices, he saw Appollis suspended in mid-air.
“There was a rod under Boeta’s legs and over his arms,” he said.
“They took him down and did the same thing to me, took off my T-shirt and shoes. They started torturing me while I could still hear Boeta groaning in pain on the other side of the room.”
However, Swanepoel challenged the plausibility of this version.
“The argument will be that it is completely impossible that you could have hung the way you explained,” she told Van Rhyn, after he demonstrated how the rod was positioned.
“It is impossible you were spun around based on the demonstration.”
She also cast doubt on the claim that he had been assaulted at the beach, arguing that Van Rhyn could not direct the court to the location.
Swanepoel stated bluntly: “It is impossible that you were injured by the police.”
Further complicating matters, Appollis previously testified that he was relieved when police removed the rod and his handcuffs, just before they were placed on Van Rhyn.
But van Rhyn insisted he was already handcuffed when he walked into the boardroom and saw his friend in the position he would soon endure himself.
As the State continued its cross-examination, Judge Nathan Erasmus intervened to address growing concerns about Van Rhyn’s understanding of the legal process.
The judge noted the accused’s limited education, pointing out that Van Rhyn had not completed primary school.
“I am very conscious of your level of education,” Erasmus told Van Rhyn.
“It doesn’t mean that you are not intelligent. I don’t want you to trip up because of the settings in court, or that we are using long sentences and big words. Your life is on the line here, literally.”
He appealed to Swanepoel to simplify her line of questioning to avoid miscommunication or confusion.
“Let’s rather simplify and ask short questions,” Judge Erasmus advised.
“Keep it simple so that there are no misunderstandings.”
Judge Erasmus also indicated that he intends to deliver judgment on the trial-within-a-trial by the end of the day on Thursday.
“I’m going to try and finish everything within this trial-within-a-trial, including argument and my findings,” he said.
“Once both the defence and the prosecution know what my finding is… everybody can assess.”
He also acknowledged that the ruling would carry significant strategic implications for both sides: “If it doesn’t go in, do we still have a case? Or do we now need to try a different angle? If it goes in, what more do we need?”
The judge advised the accused to engage meaningfully with their legal representatives.
“If you have witnesses, you should tell your lawyers what they need to do,” he said. “You might be expected to consider the instructions you give to your representatives.”
The trial-within-a-trial continues, with the court to determine whether the confessions given by the accused were made freely and voluntarily.
Cape Argus