Sergeant Dawid Johannes Fortuin testifies in the trial of the disappearance of Joshlin Smith.
Image: Mandilakhe Tshwete
The defence lawyer for one of the accused in the Joshlin Smith case has challenged a police detective over how constitutional rights were explained and why a visibly injured man was not taken for medical attention before a statement was obtained.
Joshlin Smith disappeared from her home in Middelpos, Saldanha Bay, on February 19, 2024.
Her mother Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith, Kelly’s boyfriend Jacquen ‘Boeta’ Appollis, and friend Steveno van Rhyn were arrested two weeks later.
They are on trial for kidnapping and human trafficking in the Western Cape High Court, which is sitting at the White City Multipurpose Centre in Diazville.
On Wednesday, defence lawyer Nobahle Mkabayi continued cross-examining Sergeant Dawid Johannes Fortuin in the trial-within-a-trial.
Fortuin had interviewed Van Rhyn on March 4, 2024.
Mkabayi accused the police of feeding her client a version implicating others, telling him to say: “Kelly told Boeta to take Joshlin to Maka Lima.”
Fortuin denied this, saying: “If this was prescribed to him, he should have told me.”
Fortuin admitted he hadn’t read Van Rhyn’s previous statement but said he had relied on Captain Wesley Lombard for information. He maintained his priority was finding Joshlin, not verifying previous statements.
Mkabayi questioned Fortuin’s failure to take Van Rhyn for medical attention after he noticed injuries on his arm and elbow.
“Did he not tell you his leg was sore?” she asked.
Fortuin responded: “I don’t remember that.”
After presiding officer Judge Nathan Erasmus read his notes, he told the witness that he had testified that Van Rhyn mentioned his leg was sore.
She pressed further: “Are you aware my client has a right to medical treatment?”
Fortuin agreed but said Van Rhyn did not request to see a doctor and claimed: “According to the accused, the injuries were not serious.”
Judge Erasmus interjected, asking: “He said he was in pain, did you not see the need to take him to the doctor?”
The witness said no.
Mkabayi also questioned the timing and adequacy of the constitutional rights.
Fortuin claimed he read Van Rhyn his rights after Van Rhyn implicated Kelly Smith around 10.30pm.
But Mkabayi argued he had already violated the process by allowing Van Rhyn to speak before informing him of his right not to self-incriminate.
“There is a right you didn’t explain to my client, and it is crucial,” Mkabayi said.
“The right not to be compelled to give evidence is different from the right to remain silent.”
Fortuin insisted: “He didn’t incriminate himself at that point. I explained that he didn’t have to speak.”
The trial continues.
mandilakhe.tshwete@inl.co.za
