The Witwatersrand director of public prosecutions (DPP) will be asked to present legal arguments in the drunken-driving case of metro police chief Robert McBride on witness statements related to other cases under investigation.
McBride’s case in the Pretoria Regional Court was postponed to Thursday to give his legal team a chance to serve documents on Witwatersrand DPP advocate Charin de Beer to give an input in the matter and prepare further legal arguments.
This comes as the court on Monday turned down an application by the defence to force the state to hand over all statements made by three state witnesses.
Magistrate Peet Johnson said he did not have the jurisdiction to make such an order and that it would also not be in the interest of justice to grant it.
”It would not be in the interests of justice and not in the court’s power [to order] that dockets in the possession of the director of public prosecutions in another province be handed over,” Johnson said.
The application, which delayed the re-start of McBride’s drunken-driving case, was brought by his legal counsel, Guido Penzhorn SC, who wanted all statements made to police by Itumeleng Koko, Stanley Sagathevan and Patrick Johnson to be handed to the defence team.
The three — who have already testified in McBride’s drunken-driving case — apparently made statements related to other cases being investigated in Johannesburg involving McBride. Penzhorn argued that not having the documents affected McBride’s right to adequately prepare a defence. McBride was entitled to find out why the three state witnesses changed their original statements, which had indicated McBride’s innocence.
”What exactly is the sword that hangs over these witnesses?” Penzhorn asked.
McBride’s team argued that they were intimidated by the police to change their original statements in turn for indemnity from prosecution for certain crimes they allegedly committed.
Penzhorn said it was thus important to see what else they had told police.
But advocate Christo Roberts, arguing on behalf of the state, said these documents did not form part of the drunken-driving case and as such were not relevant.
”It is impossible that when they are irrelevant to the state, they are relevant to the accused,” Roberts said.
He also said that the case being heard fell into the jurisdiction of the directorate of public prosecutions of Transvaal (Pretoria) and not that of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg), under which jurisdiction the other investigations had been taking place.
McBride pleaded not guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, defeating the ends of justice and fraud.
The charges relate to McBride’s car accident in December 2006, on the R511 south-west of Pretoria. — Sapa