Tensions rose during the drawn-out bail hearing of murder accused Rob Evans on Tuesday, when defence attorney Paul Roelofse fiercely walked out of court in frustration after being blocked from asking key questions.
Roelofse had clashed with the prosecution and the magistrate over his line of questioning during the cross-examination of investigating officer Warrant Officer Xolile Kato.
As the bail bid continued in the Humansdorp Regional Court, Roelofse insisted on his right to challenge the state’s evidence by questioning whether someone else could have been involved in the killing of Bay mother Vanessa van Rensburg.
The 36-year-old’s body was found in Evans’ Oyster Bay holiday home during the early hours of April 20, and the police quickly ruled out robbery or forced entry.
Kato, during his testimony-in-chief, also told the court that no-one else, apart from Evans, had been present in the house at the time of his girlfriend’s death.
The state alleges the Gqeberha businessman murdered Van Rensburg by beating her with a whisky bottle that was found at the scene.
However, as Roelofse poked at Kato’s testimony by raising questions about possible alternative suspects, or how someone else could have entered the house that night, magistrate Deidre Dickson stopped him.
She asked Roelofse if he was trying to speculate and said it would not assist her in deciding if Evans should be granted bail.
A visibly frustrated Roelofse then asked for an adjournment to consider his position.
In the afternoon, he returned to the courtroom with a fresh application to formally challenge the magistrate’s ruling.
Roelofse argued that questions about locked doors and potential entry without force were crucial to ensuring a fair bail application for his client.
“This is not an academic point. It is a matter of liberty and fairness,” he said.
“If the state’s inferences are not tested, then no inference can ever be considered conclusive.
“It is only through the crucible of cross-examination that we find the weight and worth of an allegation.”
Roelofse said it was Evans’ right for the investigating officer to be cross-examined on inferences drawn from circumstantial facts, investigative assumptions, and omissions and possibilities not expressly excluded by the state’s evidence.
“To now rule that this line of cross-examination is impermissible speculation because the defence has not independently ‘put a version’ through formal evidence is to turn procedural fairness on its head,” Roelofse said.
He said the defence’s ability to test evidence was central to judicial reliability.
“Judicial discretion must be exercised in favour of openness, scrutiny and testing, particularly where the state’s version rests on implication rather than direct observation.
“A procedural ruling that denies the defence the ability to challenge a witness’s inference because the defence has not led evidence on that specific factual scenario is, with respect, a material misdirection in law.
“The accused did not have access to the [police] docket.
“The state did not provide a full summary of the factual basis for its allegations before leading evidence.
“The state voluntarily chose to advance circumstantial inferences about exclusivity of presence, absence of third-party involvement and implied intent.
“The defence cross-examined only on that which the state placed before the court, by asking whether doors were locked or unlocked.”
State prosecutor Bianca Burger told the court that she would need time to respond to Roelofse’s application.
The matter was accordingly postponed to Wednesday. Evans remains in custody.
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.