A Pretoria advocate facing an array of sex charges along with his ex-girlfriend was denied leave in the city’s high court on Wednesday to question the integrity of two of the pair’s alleged child victims.
Dirk Prinsloo sought permission to cross-examine a social worker on the backgrounds of the two girls, aged 11 and 15 at the time of the alleged crimes.
He also sought access to records kept on the girls by the children’s home where they lived. Prinsloo’s co-accused, advocate Cezanne Visser, withdrew from this application.
The information being sought was likely to confirm that the girls had a propensity for lying, Philip Loubser argued for Prinsloo.
He claimed his client had information that the 11-year-old had previously made similar allegations of ”sexual misbehaviour” against other people.
These were never investigated, leading one to conclude that the girl was not believed at the time, he said.
Loubser said the girls had lied in their witness statements and pointed out that they were single witnesses — meaning it was their word against that of the accused. A history of untruthfulness would, therefore, be relevant.
”We are not dealing here with ordinary children from ordinary homes with ordinary parents,” Loubser argued.
”How will the court be able to judge on the veracity of their evidence of these problem children if it is not aware of what their problems are?”
Loubser said the law allowed one to attack the character of a witness if her credibility was in question.
But Judge Essop Patel said so-called problem children do not necessarily have a propensity for lying.
Patel accused Prinsloo of having embarked on ”a disguised form of a fishing expedition” and said cross-examination cannot be abused to strip away the dignity of sex-crime complainants in court.
”[Prinsloo] is taking liberty in tarnishing the children even before they have testified,” the judge said.
He also criticised Prinsloo’s reference in an affidavit to vague and unsubstantiated allegations about previous sex claims made by the 11-year-old.
”We have to be very careful because we might be moving into a grey area. The line is very thin,” the judge said. The court was, after all, the upper guardian of all children.
Rejecting both applications, he gave an assurance that the right of the accused to a fair trial will prevail.
The hearing continues. — Sapa