Panayiotou is a flight risk, says prosecution – As it happened

The case will resume at 09:00 on Wednesday. Court has adjourned.

Panayiotou makes a hasty exit to the holding cells in order to make his way back to prison, reports News24’s Derrick Spies.

Beeton has raised her concerns, highlighted in the delay in starting at 14:00.

She says they have run out of court time and that Panayiotou needs to be transported back to St Albans.

Stander says that the information once again points out that all travel was done on a South African passport and suddenly he has requested a Cypriot passport.

Price raises objection. Price points out again that there is no evidence that Panayiotou has received the passport.

Stander says he is not someone to hold it against someone who has travelled overseas.

He says the reason for introducing the international flight details was to show that the accused is used to travelling internationally over a 15-year period.

Stander says the court wants to know whether he has the ability to travel abroad, yet it gets decided that it is not relevant.

Stander states that in the replying affidavit from Christopher Panayiotou, it is clear that the application for the Cypriot passport was discussed.

But because it was not known that the passport had not been issued, it somehow wasn’t disclosed.

Stander says he has a serious problem with that.

Stander returns to the point that Panayiotou’s claim that he has no place to go outside of South Africa is a lot different to ‘my father has a house in Cyprus and I have family there’.

That begs the question: why not play open cards with the court?

Stander says that  a release on bail will not be in the interest of justice.

He says that the two arguments against bail are 1) that the accused will try to evade his trial, and 2) that he will attempt to influence witnesses.

Stander asks why Panayiotou never mentioned to the court that he has dual citizenship and had family in Cyprus.

He asks how difficult was it for Panayiotou to inform the court?

Stander says the arguments raised by the accused against the general conditions of prison cells relate to the conditions of communal cells.

Panayiotou, however, is in a single cell.

Stander is now addressing the issue of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in a bail hearing, highlighting a legal extract that points out that one cannot define exceptional circumstances.

He adds, however, that Christopher Panayiotou would argue exceptional circumstances for his release.

Stander submits his heads of argument and apologises should there be any spelling errors. Said he could not guarantee the spelling accuracy due to loadshedding.

Stander recognises that Price had complained that the investigating officer’s affidavit was not numbered, and has made sure his heads of argument are numbered.

Beeton asks for elaboration on the process. Stander says he is not ready to make the details public until Siyoli's next appearance on June 19.

He says that it would, however, be some sort of plea arrangement.

Stander also points out that accused number 1, Siyoli, has had legal representation from the start.

He says that at no point has it been said that the three accused will be trialled together.

Stander says that it has been made clear that there is a process taking place between Siyoli and the State, with his legal representation present.

Stander says he wants to address a few other loose ends and points out that accused number 3, Vumazonke, has not made any statement.

He says that perhaps a statement was made in another matter but neither he nor the investigating officer has any statement from Vumazonke.

He says he will take the word of Price and Griebenow if they inform him that they have spoken to the Cyprus embassy and if they confirm that the passport is in the embassy's possession.

Stander points out that nobody else is able to take possession of the passport. It will only be handed to Christopher Panayiotou.

Magistrate Beeton asks why it took more than 2 years for the passport to be issued? Stander says he has no idea.

Stander stresses that the information was given through official channels. He points out that all the accused had to do was tell the State he has dual citizenship.

Why did Panayiotou tell the court that all his travel documents were handed over, but he did not tell the court he had applied [for a Cypriot passport]?

Stander points out that there is a complex process that is involved. It is not a case of the investigating officer just picking up the phone and speaking to the embassy in Pretoria.

He says that when correct procedures were followed, the response was that Panayiotou has a Cypriot ID and that he is a holder of a Cypriot passport.

Prosecutor Marius Stander hits back, reports eNCA’s Karyn Maughan.

All Christopher Panayiotou had to do was to tell us that he'd applied for a Cypriot passport. He didn't, Stander says.

Price says that had this been true, he and Griebenow would have no option but to withdraw their application for bail and Panayiotou should remain in custody. But, he says, this is not true.

He says that the flagrant attempt by the State to blind the court should be considered and his client should be given bail.

He concludes and prosecutor Stander stands up.

Price also points out that the affidavits submitted by the investigating officer states his client applied for and "obtained" the Cypriot passport.

Price says that this is a flagrant lie submitted to the court to convince the court that Panayiotou is a flight risk.

Price says his client applied for a Cypriot passport as far back as 2013.

Price points out that the State blatantly tried to deceive the court by stating that Panayiotou has a Cypriot passport.

He says this is blatantly not true.

Price concludes that the court finds the State’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ as flagrant, transparent attempts to mislead the court.

Price argues that the State is desperate in its attempt to keep Panayiotou in custody.

Price has asked the State to be clear on which witnesses they are afraid the accused would interfere with.

They will then give them their undertaking not to interfere with said witnesses.

Price is now raising issues relating to the charges of defeating the ends of justice, suggesting his client gave instructions to Siyoli to destroy his cellphone and that he wiped his phone.

Price asks, “Who would Panayiotou interfere with? Can you imagine Panayiotou tying to take on Swanepoel?"