Sex-crimes accused Dirk Prinsloo claimed on Thursday that his former girlfriend Cezanne Visser had ulterior motives in seeking to implicate him in indecent acts with two children.
”There is an attempt by [Visser] to drag [Prinsloo] under the water,” his advocate Philip Loubser told the Pretoria High Court.
Arguing for a separation of trials, Loubser said Visser’s failure to challenge evidence that she had admitted to committing sexual acts with Prinsloo in front of two girls, amounted to an effective guilty plea.
This harmed his client’s ability to defend himself.
Loubser told the court of events leading up to Visser’s apparent change of defence tactics. The couple has pleaded not guilty to 16 and 15 charges respectively.
Last week, however, Visser’s counsel declined to cross-examine a witness who testified that Visser had admitted to claims levelled against the pair by two girls aged 11 and 15.
The girls, both residents of a children’s home who visited the couple over separate weekends in 2002, claimed having been exposed to sexual acts between the couple, being shown pornography, and being asked to walk about naked.
The alleged events gave rise to three charges of inciting a minor to commit indecent acts, and two of indecent assault.
Loubser said the couple, who he said were parties to a common law marriage, broke up a few months before the resumption of the trial in early October, with Visser accusing Prinsloo of abuse, intimidation and harassment.
There was also a demand for ”a substantial amount of money”.
When the trial got under way, she asked that Prinsloo be seated as far as possible from her in the dock.
”When there was still love and peace between the two parties … they maintained a common intent and pleaded not guilty,” Loubser argued.
”Then there is a breakdown of the relationship, of the love and peace, and all of a sudden [Visser] does not dispute some of the critical allegations.”
Prinsloo maintained that none of the acts the couple is charged with ever happened, meaning that Visser must have some ulterior motive for her actions, Loubser said.
”The effect of her failure to dispute [the evidence] boils down to one thing: ‘Yes the events took place, and [Prinsloo] was there’.”
His client had already been prejudiced, and that was likely to continue if Visser persisted in not challenging witness evidence, Loubser said.
In effect, her tactics were assisting the state in discharging its onus of proof against Prinsloo.
Judge Essop Patel said it was Visser’s constitutional prerogative to remain silent and conduct her defence in whichever way she chose.
Prinsloo’s bid might amount to an attempt to tie Visser’s hands behind her back.
But Loubser said it was Prinsloo’s hands being tied.
”He cannot fight back.”
He would not be in a position to cross-examine Visser, as she was unlikely to take the stand in her own defence.
”He will not have the benefit of a fair trial,” Loubser said.
Counsel for Visser, Casper Badenhorst, did not oppose or support Prinsloo’s application, but said there was a ”huge difference” between not contesting witness evidence and a plea of guilty.
”The plea [of not guilty] stands,” he told the court.
There was an attempt to force Visser to divulge her defence strategy, he added.
”[Prinsloo’s] discomfort with the way [Visser] is conducting her defence is not sufficient grounds for a separation of trials.”
For the state, Andre Fourie said the possible prejudice to Prinsloo must be weighed against that to be suffered by all the other parties.
If the trials were split, the prosecution would have to call complainants to the witness stand twice.
”It can never be in the interests of justice that victims be subjected to trauma twice simply because it might be convenient to an applicant [Prinsloo].”
Asking for the trial to continue unhindered, he stressed there was no agreement between the prosecution and Visser.
In the end, Patel pointed out, the outcome of the trial would boil down to whether the state had succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But Lourens said Visser’s silence meant she agreed with what witnesses were saying, however poor their performance.
”This must necessarily be a vital element when the court considers whether the state has proven its case.”
Judgment in the application is to be handed down on Friday. – Sapa