Cape Town - The Western Cape High Court has granted the State’s request to have a witness against “Terrible Josters” alleged gang leader Elton Lenting and 19 others testify through close circuit television and not to be named.
The 20 accused in the case, whose ages range from 18 to 41, face 145 charges.
The charges include murder, attempted murder, illegal possession of firearms, unlawful possession of ammunition, drug possession, drug trafficking, kidnapping, assault, arson and theft.
The relevant counts in the State’s application requests were counts 124 to 126. These involve a charge of housebreaking with intent to commit murder and murder, possession of unlicensed firearm and possession of ammunition.
These counts implicate four accused including Lenting, who allegedly led, “The Terrible Josters” in criminal gang activity from March 2002 up until January 2017.
He has been accused of murdering several people during his time.
At the hearing of these applications, Lenting’s advocate, who also represents two of the other accused, told the court his clients did not oppose the applications.
However, the advocate for the fourth accused had opposed the State’s applications.
The accused argued that he was accused of charges of murder that he did not commit and had the right to see the witness present in court so her demeanour could be observed when his legal representative cross-examined her.
In his affidavit, he was not certain that the witness would testify spontaneously without reading from a document.
Arguing the case for the witness’s anonymity, State prosecutor advocate Peter Damon called clinical psychologist Kirsten Clark to the stand to give testimony in support of his application.
Clark testified that the witness appeared to be suffering from anxiety and had reported experiencing symptoms of a panic attack when she recounted the crime she witnessed.
Clark’s report indicated that the witness experienced heart palpitations and difficulty in breathing when she was under emotional stress.
Clark further reported that the witness evinced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and there was a possibility that this witness might experience further trauma if she testified in the presence of the accused.
Clark’s sentiments were shared by the investigating officer, who alluded to the fact that the specific witness had since the incident obtained permanent employment.
In his ruling, Judge James Lekhuleni said: “Undoubtedly, it would be detrimental to the principles of fairness and justice to force an adult witness who is afraid of the accused to testify in open court where she may experience anxiety while recounting what she saw during the commission of the alleged crime.
“To expose such a witness to aggressive cross-examination by the accused in this circumstance, would not be in line with proper administration of justice.”
He said such an approach would deleteriously affect the witness, expose her to secondary trauma, and conflict with the tenets and values espoused in the Constitution.