The Johannesburg High Court today questioned the relevance of expert evidence presented during the sentencing of convicted child murderer Amber Lee Hughes, reports Southern Courier.

Child protection and development specialist Luke Lamprecht took the stand today (September 17), but Judge Richard Mkhabela repeatedly questioned aspects of his evidence, including how he could testify about the impact of the offences on Nada-Jane’s family when he had not interviewed them.

The sentencing proceedings follow yesterday’s (September 16) court session, during which Hughes’s father, Howard Hughes, was asked to leave the courtroom after Nada-Jane’s father, Elie Challita, complained about facial gestures while giving evidence.

Nada-Jane’s family, including her grandmother Donna Johnston, mother Amy Johnston, and father Elie Challita, were in court alongside Hughes, who sat with her father in the public gallery.

Judge questions witness’s evidence

State advocate Rolene Barnard led Lamprecht through his qualifications, experience and the report he prepared for the sentencing proceedings.

Lamprecht told the court he has 33 years of experience in child protection and development and has worked extensively with abused children and their families.

He said Barnard had asked him to compile a report for the High Court for sentencing purposes.

Lamprecht said he considered psychological reports, attended parts of the trial, received information from colleagues at Women and Men Against Child Abuse and followed media coverage of the case.

However, Mkhabela questioned the relevance of some of his evidence after Lamprecht confirmed that he had not interviewed Nada-Jane’s family or any of the parties involved in the case.

Lamprecht said he deliberately avoided speaking to the parties to ensure his opinion remained objective.

The judge questioned how he could give evidence about the impact of the offences on the deceased child’s family without having interviewed them.

The state argued that Lamprecht’s evidence was based on his research and professional experience involving families affected by child abuse and the deaths of children.

Mkhabela also cautioned Lamprecht to focus his evidence on the specific case rather than generalising about child abuse.

Filicide and the role of caregivers

Lamprecht explained the term filicide, which refers to the killing of one’s own child by a parent or stepparent.

His report considered the role of caregivers and the impact of abuse when the person responsible is someone a child is expected to trust and rely on for safety.

Lamprecht said the power involved in child abuse often resides in secrecy, leaving children to carry the burden of what happened while being harmed by someone who is supposed to care for them.

He also discussed the role of a mother or other caregiver in protecting a child from harm.

Defence challenges drowning evidence

Lamprecht addressed Nada-Jane’s drowning and said drowning is not an instantaneous death, with a child unable to breathe expected to fight to survive.

The defence objected, arguing that whether drowning results in an immediate loss of consciousness was a medical issue and that Lamprecht was not a medical doctor.

Barnard responded that Hughes herself had testified that Nada-Jane did not drown instantly, that the child struggled and that she had to keep the child’s head under the water.

Mkhabela noted that this evidence was already on record.

Lamprecht was also questioned about evidence that Nada-Jane had wanted to take her doll to the bath.

He explained that play is an important part of childhood development and that children often use play to model caring and nurturing behaviour.

Sexual abuse evidence

Lamprecht also discussed the sexual offence for which Hughes was convicted, including the anatomy of young children and the potential physical consequences of vaginal penetration.

He told the court he had lectured medical professionals on child sexual abuse, vaginal and anal anatomy and the effects of inflicted head injuries.

Lamprecht said the combination of offences in this case was extremely rare based on his experience and research.

His report also considered the offences from the perspective of the deceased child and the role of the caregiver.

Watch video here:

@southern.courier

Defence questions expert’s research during Amber sentencing Lamprecht says his opinions are based on child abuse literature and reports he reviewed as the defence challenges his findings. Full story on southerncourier.co.za

♬ original sound – Southern Courier

Defence challenges scope of report

Hughes’ defence attorney, Marius Bouwer, challenged aspects of Lamprecht’s evidence, including his comments about drowning and his lack of contact with Nada-Jane’s family.

The State maintained that Lamprecht’s extensive experience and research in child protection allowed him to provide evidence relevant to sentencing.

During the reading of his report, Lamprecht repeatedly referred to the conviction as premeditated murder and rape.

Mkhabela corrected him, stating that Hughes was convicted of planned murder and rape.

Lamprecht apologised when he used the previous wording while reading from the report.

The sentencing proceedings are continuing at the Johannesburg High Court, with Lamprecht still giving evidence.

Watch video here:

@southern.courier

Child protection specialist takes the stand in Amber sentencing proceedings The Specialist’s evidence focused on child abuse, the impact of the offences and the role of a caregiver, while Judge questioned the relevance of evidence based on cases Lamprecht had not personally investigated. Full story on southerncourier.co.za

♬ original sound – Southern Courier

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.

Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.