The state in the case against Johannesburg model agency boss Dawie de Villiers on Tuesday said the court should accept the evidence of his children and charge him with exposing them to pornography.
During closing arguments at the High Court sitting at the Palm Ridge Magistrates Court, state prosecuter Arveena Persad argued that de Villiers shouldn’t have exposed both his son and daughter to the naked girls and should have instead protected them as they were in his care.
De Villiers, is facing a range of charges including rape, sexual assault, sexual grooming, intimidation, fraud and possession of child pornography. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Persad referred to evidence that was given by De Villiers’s son and daughter earlier in the trial. They testified that they had seen naked models at their home.
“He said he saw the breasts of a naked girl and only the front of her vagina was covered and he could see her buttocks,” Persad read from the evidence given by de Villiers’s son.
“If a child observes a female with their breasts exposed but they have their private parts covered and they are wearing a g-string, would you regard that as exposure to pornography?,” Judge Cassim Moosa asked.
“So if this child was in front of the television and on the screen saw a female that was only wearing a bikini bottom would that qualify as pornography?,” Judge Moosa asked.
“That is different because this is dealing with exposure, he exposed the child to this,” Persad said.
It’s the state’s submission that De Villiers’s son was telling the truth and had no reason to lie.
Persad said the boy had described the g-string with innocence and honesty by saying “it was covered in the front and was in her buttocks”.
Earlier in the trial, when giving evidence, de Villiers’s daughter said she went to the bathroom and saw girls changing their clothes.
“She was in the care of de Villiers and he knew the models would have to change their clothes, he exposed her to the breasts and genitals of the girls. He allowed her to see them taking their clothes off,” Persad argued.
“So when she goes with her friend to a swimming trip and they get changed and she sees the private parts of her friends, would that count as pornography?”, Moosa asked.
“These aren’t her friends, people known to her, it is different to what occurred here. These models are way older than her,” Persad responded.
Persad agreed that the court would have to make a decision based on what was considered to be exposure of pornography to a child in the Sexual Offences Act.
South Africa Today – South Africa News
