/ 25 January 2005

‘Advocate Barbie’, boyfriend plead not guilty

Pretoria advocates Cezanne Visser and Dirk Prinsloo pleaded not guilty in the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday to an array of criminal charges involving alleged sexual violations of women and girls.

The pair, who was arrested more than two years ago, gave detailed denials of all the allegations against them.

Visser, dubbed ”Advocate Barbie” for an apparent likeness to the busty, blonde plastic doll, faces 15 charges and her boyfriend 16. They are out on bail of R4 000 each.

They stand accused of raping a child and a woman on different occasions — in each case allegedly drugging their victim first.

There are three charges of soliciting a 15-year-old girl to commit indecent acts on different occasions. In the alternative, they are charged with exposing themselves to the girl and/or performing sexual acts in front of her and/or showing her pornographic material.

The couple is also charged with paying another minor to perform a variety of sexual acts — including having intercourse with Prinsloo.

There are four counts of indecent assault — two of them involving an 11-year-old girl and the others two different women.

It is alleged they had shown the child pornographic films, exposed themselves to her, and had sexual intercourse and performed other sexual acts in front of her. They also allegedly forced her to walk around naked at their home.

The state alleges the couple committed fraud by pretending to be married for the purposes of obtaining temporary supervision over minors from a children’s home, in order to abuse them.

Other charges include one of possessing child pornography, two of manufacturing such materials, and one of possessing 12,2g of dagga.

Prinsloo is furthermore charged with assaulting a complainant in one of the indecent assault charges — a former employee of the pair.

‘With the consent of all parties’

The couple denied all the allegations against them on Tuesday, saying they had never committed any of the violations listed — willingly or otherwise.

On one of the counts of indecent assault, Prinsloo claimed the complainant had performed oral sex on him voluntarily — in the presence of and with ”the aid and assistance” of Visser.

”It was with the consent of all parties,” reads Prinsloo’s plea explanation.

Judge Essop Patel, who is hearing the case with two assessors, adjourned the matter to Wednesday morning, when he is to make a ruling on the publication of names of witnesses in the trial.

Andre Fourie, for the state, asked that the media be barred from using the names of any of the alleged victims due to testify against the pair.

But counsel for the accused disagreed, saying many of the witnesses are adults.

Piet Coetzee, for Prinsloo, claimed some of the witnesses have approached the press on their own account.

Fourie, however, said it is trite law that the names of complainants in sexual offences may not be published.

”This is about the willingness of future complainants to come forward,” Fourie told the court. ”It is in the interest of the judicial system that future victims are not discouraged from coming forward.”

Patel said he is concerned about balancing the interests of the accused, the public and society at large — as represented by the media.

He would consider the matter overnight before making a ruling.

Fourie also asked that the evidence of child witnesses be heard in camera.

The state is expected to call its first witness, a police investigator, on Wednesday.

Visser and Prinsloo were first arrested in December 2002. Charges against them were withdrawn in July the following year after several court delays.

But the state re-opened the case and the couple was re-arrested a few days later. — Sapa