The trial of sex crimes accused Cezanne Visser, alias ”Advocate Barbie”, might only continue in March next year if she has her way.
Visser’s legal representatives — appointed by the Legal Aid Board — on Tuesday withdrew from the trial after she terminated their services and, financed by her mother, appointed a private attorney and experienced senior criminal advocate to defend her.
Visser and her still on-the-run co-accused, advocate Dirk Prinsloo, both pleaded not guilty to a total of 16 charges, ranging from rape and indecent assault to sexually exploiting a minor and manufacturing child pornography.
She has changed her appearance several times during the course of her lengthy trial — at first reducing her bust line, which earned her the nickname ”Advocate Barbie” — and changing the colour of her hair.
On Tuesday she sported an elegant, shorter hairstyle and was, once again, dressed in a conservative, dark, pin-striped pants suit.
Visser in June closed her case without giving evidence, but on Tuesday told the court in an affidavit she was not happy with the way in which her case had been handled. When it appeared the Legal Aid Board did not want to replace her defence team, she had no other choice than to approach her mother for further financial help to appoint a legal team of her choice.
Her new attorney, Charl van der Westhuizen, asked Judge Essop Patel to let the case stand down until Wednesday because Visser’s new advocate, Johan Engelbrecht, SC, was not available to argue a postponement on Tuesday.
The judge reluctantly granted the request, but severely criticised Engelbrecht for accepting the case when he knew he was busy with another matter, which the judge felt bordered on contempt of court.
Patel said neither Visser nor her legal team was strangers to the legal process and the latest application was seen as another tactical manoeuvre to delay the trial and jeopardise the administration of justice.
Patel also criticised the defence for not launching the postponement application at an earlier date and only handing in Visser’s affidavit — parts of which were in dispute — on Tuesday. He said there was a court order compelling the parties to be ready to proceed with final argument, but the defence had ignored a court order to hand in final argument by July 24.
Patel ordered Visser’s previous advocate, the Legal Aid Board and the state to hand in affidavits pertaining to certain statements Visser had made in her affidavit.
Visser told the court Engelbrecht had agreed to take on her case only if it was postponed so that he could study the record and exhibits properly and was allowed time to consult with various experts. — Sapa