WATCH: Defence seeks to reopen case in Amber Lee Hughes sentencing
Judge Mkhabela questions why the defence did not call a psychologist or psychiatrist as the court considers whether further expert evidence is needed before sentencing.
Following a short break, the second part of Friday’s sentencing proceedings in the Johannesburg High Court shifted to a lengthy discussion about whether the defence should be allowed to reopen its case and call a psychologist or psychiatrist.
The discussion followed evidence from social worker Carina Wolmarans about Hughes’ background and history, with the court considering whether further expert evidence is needed to address a possible link between her circumstances and her state of mind at the time of Nada-Jane’s death.
Judge Richard Mkhabela, defence attorney Marius Bouwer and State advocate Rolene Barnard debated whether the proposed expert evidence is essential before the court can proceed with sentencing.
Judge questions decision not to call expert
Bouwer told the court the defence had previously considered calling a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist but ultimately did not do so.
He explained that the defence had understood that the State intended to call a psychiatrist who had previously assessed Hughes while she was in state custody as part of proceedings relating to her fitness to stand trial.
According to Bouwer, the defence therefore decided not to call its own expert, believing the psychiatrist would be called by the State.
The State later indicated that the psychiatrist would not be called.
Judge Mkhabela questioned when the defence became aware of this and whether it should then have reconsidered its decision before closing its case.
Wolmarans’ evidence discussed
The judge also referred to Wolmarans’ evidence and the limits of her expertise.
Wolmarans had testified about Hughes’ background and history, including her mental health history and medication.
However, Judge Mkhabela previously intervened when her evidence moved into areas requiring psychological or psychiatric expertise, reminding the court that she is a social worker and not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
The judge questioned whether this left a gap in the evidence regarding the possible link between Hughes’ circumstances and her state of mind at the time of the offence.
State opposes further evidence
Barnard argued against the court calling a further expert witness under Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
She submitted that the State’s case and the evidence already placed before the court provide sufficient information for the court to make its sentencing determination.
Barnard also addressed allegations of abuse raised during the proceedings.
She told the court there is no evidence on record establishing physical abuse, while Challita had testified that he and Hughes verbally abused or disrespected each other during arguments.
According to Barnard, Challita had also said he did not know who started the arguments.
Defence argues expert evidence is necessary
Bouwer maintained that the court has a discretion under Section 186 to call a witness where the evidence is considered essential to reaching a just decision.
He argued that expert evidence could assist the court in understanding the relationship between Hughes’ background and her state of mind.
The discussion also turned to what would be required if an expert were called.
Bouwer agreed that a psychologist or psychiatrist would need to properly assess Hughes before providing an opinion. He indicated that this could involve consultations with Hughes while she is in custody.
He also referred to psychiatrists who had previously assessed Hughes in relation to her fitness to stand trial.
Court to hear reopening application
Judge Mkhabela questioned whether Section 186 should be used to call an expert whom the defence had previously considered calling but ultimately decided not to call.
Bouwer maintained that the provision could be used if the evidence is considered necessary in the interests of justice.
The court ultimately postponed the matter to October 13, when it will hear the defence application to reopen its case.
The sentencing proceedings will therefore continue when the court considers whether the defence should be permitted to present the additional expert evidence.
WATCH: Defence questions Challita over drowning-day events in Hughes sentencing
