Police arrested a 47-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man in Bloubergstrand, Western Cape, on Tuesday, 10 June 2025, for the alleged sexual abuse of their two daughters, aged three and eight. (Photo: SAPS) 
The evidence in the case of Bloubergstrand couple accused of child pornography, rape, sexual assault and sexual grooming is so explicit that, to safeguard the interests of the children, the State is not going to present copies of such images and videos.
This was the gist of the State’s argument in opposing the defence’s application for full access to State evidence during an interlocutory hearing in the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, 26 June.
The names of the two accused, aged 47 and 48, cannot be mentioned because of the horrible crimes the pair allegedly committed with their two minor daughters between 2020 and April 2025. Their daughters are aged three and eight years old.
Criminal lawyer William Booth, representing the couple, called for the full disclosure of the evidence the State has against his clients and the grounds on which the State opposes their release on bail.
Initially, he questioned the period that had elapsed since his clients’ arrests and the time of their court appearance. But Magistrate Alida Theart told Booth that she had already made a ruling that their court appearance was in accordance with the prescribed period of 48 hours after their arrests.
State prosecutor Claire Smidt said she was still waiting for the full profiles of the accused, forensic evidence against them and the views of the children.
Read more: Attacks on children — the scourge of violent crime affecting SA’s most vulnerable
According to police spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Amanda van Wyk, the arrest of the couple on 10 June 2025 followed a joint investigation involving the South African Police Service, the Department of Social Development, the FBI and US Homeland Security.
They face two counts of rape, as well as counts of attempted rape, creating child pornography, grooming, sexual exploitation of children, financially benefiting from child pornography, compelling children to watch them while masturbating, and child abuse.
On Thursday, the court heard that more charges were likely to be added.
Request for full summary of evidence
In his arguments, Booth underlined that the charge sheet included meagre information, hence the defence’s request for a detailed summary of the evidence.
Booth said the State had not replied to his requests for clarity on the charges.
“I can but assume the State is not saying why they are opposing bail. All we have is this charge sheet, 25 charges that do not set out a summary of the case. It also doesn’t say why the State is opposing bail.
“What are the crisp issues? Are there allegations that they are a flight risk, might interfere with witnesses, destroy evidence or in this case, create some upheaval in the community?” Booth asked.
Defence application is ‘premature’
In her reply, State prosecutor Smidt said it was a pity that Booth had not been present at the couple’s first court appearance. At that juncture, the State made it clear they were dealing with 17 counts contravening almost every section of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act.
“Perhaps my learned colleague is a bit premature in his approach, because from the word go it was made clear that the State is not in the possession of the full profile of both accused persons. The State has indicated it needs to obtain the full bail profile as well as the views of the children through means of the social worker.
“To provide and be prescriptive in surmising that the State has not brought anything to the table is totally untruthful,” she stated.
Read more: Gaps in the safety net — breaking down state and societal protections for children
Smidt told the court that the State had been clear that the couple’s electronic devices were encrypted and that further charges could be added once they became accessible.
“Because of the explicit sexual nature of these 25 counts we are dealing with, the State is not going to parade copies of such images and videos. The State also has a duty to safeguard those interests of the children.
“When the time comes in the bail application, the State will do so in camera, at the appropriate time in the appropriate court,” she said.
She reiterated that the State would not deny the accused persons their right to present their case before the court, but it also had to safeguard the investigation.
“We cannot just be focused on the rights of the accused, because there are rights as far as the integrity of our investigation. What stands paramount is the best interest of the children.”
Magistrate Theart will rule on this application on 2 July. DM