Motata defence queries treatment of blood sample

The defence in Judge Nkola Motata’s drunken-driving trial on Monday raised queries about apparent discrepancies in how a blood sample was registered at a laboratory testing its alcohol level.

During cross-examination of chief forensic analyst Logan Govender in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, defence advocate Danie Dorfling pointed out that a blood sample sent to the forensic chemistry lab in Johannesburg was recorded in a register with a case number deriving from December 2006 in Hillbrow.

Motata’s blood was taken on January 6 2007 after he crashed his Jaguar into the perimeter wall of a Hurlingham property, allegedly while drunk.

On Monday, Dorfling also pointed out that changes had been made to the register entry.

Different handwriting added a bracket with the word “Parkview” in the place in the register that originally identified the sample as coming from Hillbrow.

The case number was also changed in a different colour ink.

Dorfling also queried a March 2007 report signed by Govender that stated he received the blood sample from Parkview police.

During testimony on Monday, Govender said he knew the sample had come from Hillbrow.

During cross-examination, Dorfling also questioned aspects of how the sample was handled in the laboratory.

He asked Govender, for example, how long the blood sample would have been at room temperature before being put in cold storage.

Govender said judging by the registration of nearly a hundred samples that came into the lab the same day as the blood sample in question—January 12 2007—the blood sample should have been sorted and in cold storage by the same night.

However, he conceded to Dorfling that this was only an intelligent guess.

Govender said as far as he knew he was the only person who had a key to the trunk where the sample was kept before being put in cold storage.

There “could be other keys” to the padlock used to lock the trunk kept at the laboratory’s reception, he said.

He said at the time the sample came in, a computerised system was being implemented in the laboratory. Therefore, although the sample arrived at the laboratory on January 12, it was only recorded on the computer system on March 2. Govender said this was also the day he first received possession of the sample, which is why his report depicts this as the day the sample was received.

Earlier, during his evidence-in-chief, Govender provided a step-by-step explanation of the procedure used to analyse the sample.

Magistrate Desmond Nair adjourned court because he requested that Govender make a flow chart of the procedures he was explaining.

Govender testified that the sample he analysed recorded a concentration of alcohol in the blood as 0,2 grams per 100 millilitres. The legal limit is 0,05 grams.

The court adjourned in the morning after the defence raised queries about whether they had full possession of all documentation related to the witness.

The state agreed to provide the defence with the documents it requested.

During cross-examination, Dorfling asked Govender if he could provide certain documents not yet brought before the court. The case was adjourned in the afternoon to allow Govender time to obtain the documents.

Proceedings continue on Tuesday.