The media was in the dock again on Friday in the ”advocate Barbie” sex-crimes trial after the tabloid Die Son published a picture of the accused — Cezanne Visser and Dirk Prinsloo — naked.
Defence counsel argued that the publication of the photograph amounted to contempt of court and crimen injuria.
They asked the court to invoke Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act and order Die Son to reveal the source of the picture.
”The publication of the photograph served no purpose of informing the public, only to humiliate and degrade the accused before court,” Piet Coetzee argued for Prinsloo.
”They must walk down the street again. That photograph was private. It was for them to realise the beauty of their love. Now it is made ugly.”
For Visser, Gerhard Botha argued that his client’s right to dignity and privacy had been infringed in ”the most horrible way”.
”The photograph is so humiliating — it is over the whole page, look at it,” he exclaimed. ”Accused number two [Visser] is devastated.”
The picture on page three shows the two naked, with Prinsloo leaning his head against Visser’s surgically enhanced bosom while clutching her buttocks.
The matter will be dealt with in the form of a formal application supported by evidence and affidavits on March 8.
Judge Essop Patel expressed concern about the accused’s dignity and privacy being invaded, and urged the media to exercise discretion.
Beeld mum on ‘Barbie’ column
On Thursday, a newspaper editor and a columnist invoked their right to remain silent when appearing before Patel to explain errors in a commentary piece about the trial.
Frans Odendaal, counsel for Beeld editor Peet Kruger and freelance columnist Jeanne Goosen, requested Patel to leave the matter in the hands of prosecuting authorities.
He disputed the correctness of Patel’s decision to summon the pair to explain their actions on top of directing prosecuting authorities to institute a criminal investigation.
There is no provision in the law for a person to be subjected to a criminal probe and to a summary inquiry on the same charge, he argued.
Kruger and Goosen sat listening to the arguments in the front row of the public gallery — he neatly dressed in a dark suit and tie, she in sporting slacks.
Odendaal quoted from a 2001 Constitutional Court judgement that found summary inquiries in cases involving contempt-of-court charges unsatisfactory and irreconcilable with standards of fairness.
Such inquiries do not allow an accused person the right to be properly informed of the charge against them, no right to remain silent, and no right to challenge evidence.
Summary contempt procedures are an unacceptable limitation of individual rights, Odendaal argued.
The case is not so exceptional that it has to be heard immediately, and he did not have enough time to prepare, he added.
Patel on Wednesday summoned Kruger and Goosen to appear before him to explain factual errors in a column Goosen wrote to highlight Visser’s public ”vilification”.
Patel ruled that the column appeared at first glance to be in contempt of court.
He summoned Kruger and Goosen to explain and ordered police to investigate a charge of contempt of court against the author and newspaper.
For the state, Andre Fourie agreed on Thursday that a summary inquiry is not the correct avenue, but asked the judge to at least admonish Goosen and Beeld.
The newspaper should be warned against publishing irresponsible comments, especially concerning the credibility of witnesses, he said.
But Odendaal said it would be wrong for the judge to give any admonishment or warning pending the outcome of the criminal probe.
Patel reserved judgement on how the matter will be dealt with.
Incorrect references
Goosen’s column, published on Tuesday, contained incorrect references to Visser being handcuffed in court and to pornographic videos being shown daily despite objections from the defence.
She objected to comparisons between Visser and Barbie — the blonde, busty plastic doll.
Instead, she compared the media attention being paid to Visser to the plight of Saartje Baartman, a Khoi woman abused at 19th-century curiosity shows in Europe.
”Advocate Barbie is our modern Saartje Baartman. She is reviled, ridiculed, stripped and slaughtered,” the column reads.
Goosen made reference to a 14-year-old girl allegedly raped by Visser and Prinsloo — saying she took the allegations with a pinch of salt since the girl had a history of prostitution and drug abuse.
She also referred to the trial as a medieval funfair where perverts could indulge their fantasies ad infinitum. — Sapa