Mfundekelwa Mkhulisi
Mfundekelwa Mkhulisi
The state again failed to bring the mysterious Mrs X to testify in the drunk driving trial of Pretoria high court judge Nkola Motata.
Prosecutor Zaais van Zyl attempted to use Superintendent Maxi Ryan as a ploy to motivate for Mrs X to be called to testify. Ryan told the court about the difficulty she had in locating her.
"The full picture has never been painted before this court. The court must hear this evidence and then decide whether it is relevant," said Van Zyl.
He said it had become a tradition that investigating officers were called later by the court to tie up the loose ends.
Defence lawyer Danie Dorfling argued that the state had Mrs X's evidence earlier in the trial but had opted not to present it.
"Mr Van Zyl can't have two bites of the cherry," he said.
Chief magistrate Desmond Nair ruled in favour of the defence.
"I will allow her to outline the difficulties in securing evidence from witnesses and not for motivating Mrs X," said Nair.
Ryan told the court that she tried more than four times to get hold of Mrs X without success.
However, when Dorfling asked her to show the court entries in the police diary about her attempts to locate the witness, Ryan failed to do so. Dorfling also wanted to know why the police did not subpoena her since they had her address and cell phone number.
During cross-examination, Ryan contradicted herself. She said she did not draft the witness's statement before she typed it while in her evidence-in-chief she said she had drafted it. The trial continues.
Mrs X fails to testify again in Motata case
Mfundekelwa Mkhulisi
Mfundekelwa Mkhulisi
The state again failed to bring the mysterious Mrs X to testify in the drunk driving trial of Pretoria high court judge Nkola Motata.
Prosecutor Zaais van Zyl attempted to use Superintendent Maxi Ryan as a ploy to motivate for Mrs X to be called to testify. Ryan told the court about the difficulty she had in locating her.
"The full picture has never been painted before this court. The court must hear this evidence and then decide whether it is relevant," said Van Zyl.
He said it had become a tradition that investigating officers were called later by the court to tie up the loose ends.
Defence lawyer Danie Dorfling argued that the state had Mrs X's evidence earlier in the trial but had opted not to present it.
"Mr Van Zyl can't have two bites of the cherry," he said.
Chief magistrate Desmond Nair ruled in favour of the defence.
"I will allow her to outline the difficulties in securing evidence from witnesses and not for motivating Mrs X," said Nair.
Ryan told the court that she tried more than four times to get hold of Mrs X without success.
However, when Dorfling asked her to show the court entries in the police diary about her attempts to locate the witness, Ryan failed to do so. Dorfling also wanted to know why the police did not subpoena her since they had her address and cell phone number.
During cross-examination, Ryan contradicted herself. She said she did not draft the witness's statement before she typed it while in her evidence-in-chief she said she had drafted it. The trial continues.