Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Maverick News

Maverick News

Accused in Joshlin Smith trial decline to take stand or call witnesses

Accused in Joshlin Smith trial decline to take stand or call witnesses
The three accused (from left) Jacquen Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn and Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith in the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay on Wednesday, 23 April 2025. (Photo: Vincent Cruywagen)
Vincent Cruywagen
By Vincent Cruywagen
23 Apr 2025
Facebook
2
The three accused in the Joshlin Smith case have spurned taking the stand or calling witnesses in their defence, meaning much of the State’s evidence against them will go unchallenged.

Racquel Smith, also known as Kelly, the mother of missing Joshlin Smith, and her two co-accused, her boyfriend Jacquen Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn, have chosen to remain silent, deciding to neither take the stand nor call any witnesses in their defence, thereby closing the case against them.

appollis van rhyn smith The three accused (from left) Jacquen Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn and Racquel ‘Kelly’ Smith in the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay on Wednesday, 23 April 2025. (Photo: Vincent Cruywagen)



The decision by the trio was taken in the Western Cape High Court, sitting in the Multipurpose Centre in Saldanha Bay, on Wednesday, 23 April, and means that the State’s evidence against them on the counts of kidnapping and trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation goes unchallenged.

Simultaneously, family members, friends and the Saldanha Bay community as a whole are left with a slew of unanswered questions, no closure and no idea what happened to Joshlin, where she is, or whether she is still alive. Joshlin was six years old when she went missing on 19 February 2024. 

Before they chose to remain silent, Judge Nathan Erasmus issued an order denying Smith and Van Rhyn’s section 174 motion to have the charges against them withdrawn. Appollis did not submit a section 174 application.

With no evidence at its disposal, counsel for the three accused will not file heads of arguments to be heard on Tuesday, 29 April. They will simply dispute the heads of arguments that will be presented by State prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel, as well as the grounds on why the State should convict the trio on the charges submitted against them.

Judgment day


Judge Erasmus noted that if all went as planned, the accused would hear their fate on Friday, 2 May, when he delivered judgment. If convicted, particularly on the count of human trafficking, the minimum penalty will be life in prison.

Appollis, Van Rhyn and Smith face their charges after Joshlin’s disappearance on 19 February 2024 from the Middelpos informal settlement in Saldanha Bay. 

The three, who have pleaded not guilty, have denied the allegations against them. The State alleges that the accused “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin, a Grade 1 learner at Diazville Primary, for money.

Smith’s warning statement, read into the record on Tuesday, 22 April, provided a timeline of the day Joshlin Smith went missing. She didn’t describe Joshlin’s possible whereabouts, and the statement is inconsistent with the evidence before the court.

The only piece of solid evidence the State has against the three is that of State witness Luarentia Lombaard, who was initially accused number four, who detailed how Joshlin Smith’s mother allegedly plotted to sell the six-year-old to a sangoma for R20,000.

Read more: Shocking testimony unveils Kelly Smith’s alleged plot to sell six-year-old daughter Joshlin to a sangoma

Appollis and Van Rhyn appear to have implicated themselves when they stated that Joshlin was taken to a supposed sangoma on the day she went missing. Judge Erasmus ruled that the accused’s confessions in the Joshlin Smith trial were admissible and could be used as evidence against them.

Read more: Court hears Kelly Smith’s timeline of the day Joshlin went missing, with gaps in evidence

The court has heard that Smith mentioned the idea of selling her child multiple times before Joshlin went missing, and police have testified that she did not appear particularly concerned after her daughter’s disappearance.

Arguments in the 174 applications


Rinesh Sivnarain, who represented Smith, argued that the State had failed to show a prima facie case against his client. He went on to remark that in certain instances, the evidence was of dubious trustworthiness. As there was no evidence, Smith was entitled to a discharge, he argued.

On the weight of State witness Lombaard’s evidence, Sivnarain contended that she was a single witness in the case. Even though other witnesses were called, the State is relying heavily on her version. 

He said that as a single witness, Lombaard’s evidence had to be satisfactory in all relevant aspects. He contended that Lombaard had failed in this and that her evidence fell short of that standard.

Sivnarain said that in his opinion, Lombaard’s evidence was not credible; she should be deemed not credible.

“The evidence was riddled with inconsistencies throughout the cross-examination. Lombaard contradicted herself repeatedly. She also testified that her confession that she made was full of mistakes because she was under the influence of drugs.

“For that reason alone, her evidence is untrustworthy, and at some point during her cross-examination, the court asked her if she had drugs that morning, based on the answers she gave,” he argued.

Read more: Defence casts doubt on Laurentia Lombaard’s testimony in Joshlin Smith trial

Nobahle Mkabayi, representing Van Rhyn, said that her client had no case to answer because all the State witnesses who testified in the case had failed to give any evidence that might lead the court to conclude that Van Rhyn had committed an offence.

Judge Erasmus reminded Mkabayi that her client had made a statement in which he said that he was with Joshlin when she was delivered to someone else, and that he returned to ask for his share of the money.

Mkabayi’s counter-argument was that this version had not been substantiated or supported by other evidence. 

“So there is no proof before the court. It would be unfair to bring the accused into the witness box only to augment the State’s case,” Mkabayi contended.

In opposing the section 174 withdrawal application, State prosecutor Swanepoel reiterated that when the court considered human trafficking, it looked at a process rather than a single act.

“It is a process. Trafficking happens through a process, and in this case, we are dealing with a child victim, and we only have to look at the act and then the purpose of exploitation.

“I submit that the court has to look at all the evidence holistically. The purpose of this application is not to say whether the accused is guilty or not, the test is whether there is evidence that a reasonable court acting with caution could convict, and my submission there is sufficient evidence to, in fact to say, that a court can come to that conclusion,” Swanepoel said.

Ruling will stand 


Judge Erasmus said he would not give reasons for his ruling on the section 174 application:

“For two primary reasons. One is this finding is in itself not appealable at this stage. Secondly, for the court to summarise all the evidence and draw conclusions therefrom, it might be premature as that is not the way the court evaluates evidence,” the judge emphasised.

“I have an application from Smith and Van Rhyn to be found not guilty at this stage of the trial. I’ve heard the arguments from the defence as well as the prosecution.

“On the basis of the facts that [are] before me, I’m not of the opinion that there is no evidence that … a reasonable court might convict in relation to both Smith and Van Rhyn. And for that reason, their application for discharge is refused,” he said.

The prosecution must now wrap up its case and prepare its heads of arguments, a difficult challenge that will include connecting the dots and explaining why the court should convict the three accused on the allegations brought against them.

The State’s heads of arguments will be delivered to the judge and defence counsel by Monday, 28 April. Arguments will be heard on Tuesday, 29 April. DM

Categories:

Tags: