On Monday‚ more than any other day‚ the blank canvas that is Henri van Breda’s face was coloured in with anxiety.
He sat in the dock with reddened cheeks looking nervous and haunted - but at the same time drained as if the last fifty plus days in court have pulled the life force from him.
It is not surprising given the turn of events: while a long parade of witnesses have testified against him‚ and a small handful in his favour‚ he has worn a poker face‚ a sullen face‚ an amused face when shards of humour have broken through‚ and has also on occasion shed some tears. He has fiddled incessantly with his ring and pen‚ and has even dozed off when proceedings have become boring.
The public‚ however‚ has not actually heard him speak.
Livestreamed testimony of an accused can take the public spectacle of a court case to a whole new level as it did with the Oscar Pistorius trial.
His testimony was due to begin (in camera too) on Monday‚ but in a surprise move‚ his defence counsel handed up an application for this to be changed.
Now he must wait until Tuesday morning to hear if he - like all the other witnesses - will give testimony for all the world to see.
The default is that it should be.
Earlier this year‚ both the state and the defence sought to have a decision overturned that approved Media24’s application to livestream the much anticipated trial.
Their appeal failed‚ and about half way through the state leading evidence in chief (the time when a final decision was made)‚ the camera personnel began arriving with their gear.
The agreement was that all witnesses would appear on the livestream‚ unless they felt they had just reason to be exempt from this - at which point Judge Siraj Desai would consider their reasons on a case by case basis.
To date‚ no other witnesses have asked not to testify before the cameras.
Van Breda’s application is based on the argument that he stutters and that this may affect his demeanour.
Said Van Breda’s counsel‚ Piet Botha‚ on Monday: “My client may start to stutter and mumble and that may negatively impact on your lordship's perception of him.”
Judge Siraj Desai said‚ “But‚ could we not take that into account - and not hold it against him that he stutters?”
Botha said it could “subconsciously affect his demeanour” and that inferences might be drawn from him “dropping his voice”‚ “mumbling”‚ “hesitating for too long before giving an answer” and most importantly‚ exacerbating his stutter which gets worse under pressure.
Botha also pointed out that there was no case law on the matter‚ and Judge Desai agreed‚ “That is why I hesitate.”
Botha said Van Breda was “very much aware of the media attention in this matter” after “thousands of photographs” had been taken of him‚ and that “over time” his “demeanour in the witness box” might negatively influence perceptions of him.
- TimesLIVE
Source: TMG Digital.
Van Breda does not want his testimony caught on camera
He sat in the dock with reddened cheeks looking nervous and haunted - but at the same time drained as if the last fifty plus days in court have pulled the life force from him.
It is not surprising given the turn of events: while a long parade of witnesses have testified against him‚ and a small handful in his favour‚ he has worn a poker face‚ a sullen face‚ an amused face when shards of humour have broken through‚ and has also on occasion shed some tears. He has fiddled incessantly with his ring and pen‚ and has even dozed off when proceedings have become boring.
The public‚ however‚ has not actually heard him speak.
Livestreamed testimony of an accused can take the public spectacle of a court case to a whole new level as it did with the Oscar Pistorius trial.
His testimony was due to begin (in camera too) on Monday‚ but in a surprise move‚ his defence counsel handed up an application for this to be changed.
Now he must wait until Tuesday morning to hear if he - like all the other witnesses - will give testimony for all the world to see.
The default is that it should be.
Earlier this year‚ both the state and the defence sought to have a decision overturned that approved Media24’s application to livestream the much anticipated trial.
Their appeal failed‚ and about half way through the state leading evidence in chief (the time when a final decision was made)‚ the camera personnel began arriving with their gear.
The agreement was that all witnesses would appear on the livestream‚ unless they felt they had just reason to be exempt from this - at which point Judge Siraj Desai would consider their reasons on a case by case basis.
To date‚ no other witnesses have asked not to testify before the cameras.
Van Breda’s application is based on the argument that he stutters and that this may affect his demeanour.
Said Van Breda’s counsel‚ Piet Botha‚ on Monday: “My client may start to stutter and mumble and that may negatively impact on your lordship's perception of him.”
Judge Siraj Desai said‚ “But‚ could we not take that into account - and not hold it against him that he stutters?”
Botha said it could “subconsciously affect his demeanour” and that inferences might be drawn from him “dropping his voice”‚ “mumbling”‚ “hesitating for too long before giving an answer” and most importantly‚ exacerbating his stutter which gets worse under pressure.
Botha also pointed out that there was no case law on the matter‚ and Judge Desai agreed‚ “That is why I hesitate.”
Botha said Van Breda was “very much aware of the media attention in this matter” after “thousands of photographs” had been taken of him‚ and that “over time” his “demeanour in the witness box” might negatively influence perceptions of him.
- TimesLIVE
Source: TMG Digital.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos