Cape Town - Judge Robert Henney came down on the prosecution on Thursday after a forensic social worker was called to testify about her assessment of child witnesses, where four men stand accused of murder, in the Western Cape High Court.
Dawnay Davids, 19, Mahlubandile Jacobs, 26, Moegamat Swarts, 26, and Vincent Davids, 28, have been charged with murder, attempted murder, aiding and abetting criminal gang activity, possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition.
It is the State’s case that a number of children were at the scene when the accused allegedly killed Christopher Joubert, 46, and Likeshia Joubert, 4, who were shot outside their home in Uitsig on March 26, 2019.
Maria Goosen interviewed child witnesses so that an intermediary could be appointed when they testify in court. A report by Goosen, in which she detailed her findings with regards to the witnesses, came under scrutiny by defence counsel Andre Pienaar.
Pienaar questioned Goosen about a paragraph in her report which stated: “The child’s recollection of events he witnessed was fragmented but consistent with information obtained from collaterals”.
This evidence was discussed in court where the judge questioned why Goosen was called as a witness.
“It seems like the child could not remember everything and then you had to speak to someone else to confirm the consistency of the child’s version of the events,” Judge Henney said.
Judge Henney said this was for the court to decide.
“This report went too far in my view, it went too far and it was also not necessary for the purposes of this report and your investigation which you are saying here was to assess whether this child should testify through an intermediary and that is not in dispute, I don’t know why the State called you as a witness,” Judge Henney said.
He further said the prosecutor, advocate Liezl Scholzel put herself in a difficult position and there was a danger with this kind of evidence, because it indicates two witnesses talked about the incident.
“That is very dangerous and in my view, actually improper,” he said.
Goosen managed to clarify and said the person she spoke to for confirmation could only say the child was at the scene and that she primarily asked about the impact of the event on the child. Judge Henney said that he understood the purpose, however, the evidence may still be inadmissible.
This then gave the defence an opportunity to find further fault with the evidence which included a part of the report that stated the child was susceptible to external influence, and according to the defence, the varying version the child gave the court when he testified compared to the version he gave the social worker.
Judge Henney said: “I want to reiterate these reports should never find its way into the court, it is purely for the purpose of the prosecution who needs to make a decision whether this witness is competent.”