/ 30 July 2008

Defence: Motata denied being drunk at accident scene

Pretoria High Court Judge Nkola Motata denied being drunk at the scene of an accident, the defence proposed in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday.

Earlier, a note, full of spelling errors and illegible in parts, apparently written by the judge at the scene of the accident, was admitted as evidence in court.

During cross-examination of Richard Baird, the owner of the property Motata crashed into, defence advocate Danie Dorfling said it was a proposition that throughout the evening Motata denied he was drunk.

He said five cellphone recordings that Baird took at the accident scene substantiated this.

Motata crashed his Jaguar into the perimeter wall of Baird’s Hurlingham, Johannesburg, property on January 6 2007, allegedly while drunk.

Defence advocate Danie Dorfling said the first time Motata denied being drunk was when he said in Sotho ”They must not think they have caught me with something”, after he said police could take him to a station and ”do whatever they want to do”.

”That’s the first clear indication he was trying to convey [that] he wasn’t caught drunk,” Dorfling said.

Dorfling said Motata again denied being drunk when he said ”Don’t talk rubbish” when Baird and the metro police were talking about taking blood tests and breathalysers.

Dorfling stated he was ”putting it no higher than a proposition” that these words were evidence of Motata denying being drunk on the scene.

”If he [witness Richard Baird] disagrees, he disagrees.

”I don’t believe I heard him say he was not drunk,” said Baird.

State advocate Zaais van Zyl objected to some of the questions, saying how could Baird know what Motata was referring to with his statements that night.

The note admitted as evidence on Wednesday was apparently intended to provide Baird with Motata’s contact details.

The note, with spelling errors, reads: ”The honourable Mr Mr Justice NJ Motata Transvaall Provinccial Divisionn [TPD [an illegible mark]].” A Pretoria-coded telephone number, the last few numbers of which are not legible, follows.

Discrepancies
During cross-examination by the defence, Baird said he had determined Motata was drunk before he had spoken to him. He said he considered Motata drunk because the tenant on his property who discovered the accident scene, Lucky Melk, told him so.

Baird also said he used the fact that Motata had reversed-parked into his wall and the fact that he was sleeping in his car when Baird arrived on the scene as evidence of him being drunk.

Baird said there was ”some commotion” at the accident scene by female metro officers about getting a breathalyser and there was talk that back-up policemen should bring one.

However, he said he did not see a breathalyser on the scene.

The defence raised questions over discrepancies about the time that Baird recorded events and the time metro police recorded events on the scene.

Earlier in the trial, metro policeman Daniel Moratlhodi Madibo testified that he was called to the scene at about 2.50am and arrested Motata about 3.10am.

Baird insisted the arrest took place earlier, at about 2.30am.

Baird was adamant that by using the time on his cellphone he had captured an accurate time frame of events on the night of the accident.

Baird said it was possible that blood was only drawn from Motata at 3.35am as the doctor, a Dr Gazi, who conducted the procedure, had noted.

Baird said it took at least 40 minutes to get to Hillbrow, where the test was done, from Hurlingham, and other procedures might have followed.

This would mean blood was drawn more than three hours after the accident occurred.

During questioning by the state, Baird said his perimeter wall, electric fence and irrigation system were damaged by the accident.

The defence’s cross-examination of Baird is expected to continue on Thursday.

Motata is facing a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with an alternate charge of driving with an excess of alcohol in his blood or reckless or negligent driving.

He also faces a charge of defeating the ends of justice, with an alternate charge of resisting arrest. — Sapa