About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAWCHC 31
|
|
S v Petersen and Another (SS41/16) [2017] ZAWCHC 31 (22 March 2017)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
In
the matter between
Case
No: SS41/16
THE
STATE
and
SEFIRO
PETERSEN
FIRST
ACCUSED
ENRICO
HARRISON
SECOND
ACCUSED
Coram
:
ROGERS J
Heard:
27 & 28 FEBRUARY, 1, 2, 6, 7, 13-16 & 20 MARCH 2017
Delivered:
22 MARCH 2017
JUDGMENT
ROGERS J:
[1]
The accused are charged with the following crimes
relating to a shooting which took place at the home of Joseph and
Chantal Boltman
at […] B. Avenue, P., on the evening of
Tuesday 26 January 2016: (i) trespass by entering the said home;
(ii) the attempted
murder of Tasriek Lewin; (iii) the attempted
murder of Joseph Boltman; (iv) the murder of J. S., the Boltmans’
ten-year-old
son; (v) unlawful possession of the firearm used in
the shooting; (vi) unlawful possession of the ammunition used in
the shooting. The indictment alleges that in committing the murder
and the attempted murders the accused were acting in the furtherance
of a common purpose.
[2]
Mr Badenhorst prosecuted, Mr Nel appeared for No 1 and
Mr Adams appeared for No 2. The accused pleaded not guilty. Each of
them
said that their defence was an alibi.
[3]
The layout of the area appears from the aerial map
exhibit ‘A3’. If the map is held vertically, B. Avenue
runs from
the bottom to the top of the page. Although the orientation
is south-west (bottom) to north-east (top), I shall for convenience
treat B. Avenue as running from south (bottom) to north (top).
Parker’s Walk is parallel with, and to the east of, B. Avenue.
P. Avenue is parallel with, and to the west of, B. Avenue.
[4]
There are two
dwellings at 38D B. Avenue. Joseph Boltman’s father, Patrick,
lives with Joseph’s sister, Frans, in an
upstairs residence.
The entrance to Patrick’s dwelling is off B. Avenue.
[1]
Joseph’s house is downstairs. Its entrance is off a netball
court which runs between B. Avenue and Parker’s Walk.
[2]
Joseph’s house faces south onto the netball court. (On the
aerial map, the name ‘Parkers’ appears immediately
to the
right (east) of the open rectangle constituting the netball court.
The two Boltman residences occupy the north-west corner
of the
netball court.)
[5]
As at January 2016 Joseph was a Rastafarian who smoked
and sold dagga. To the locals he was known as the ‘Aai’
or ‘Aaiman
Joey’.
[6]
At the entrance to
Joseph’s house is a security gate, immediately behind which is
a corrugated tin door.
[3]
On the
inside of the gate/door is a roofed yard or passage area. The part of
the passage/yard to the left of the entrance is a
storage area where
Joseph and his Rastafarian friends would smoke dagga. It was referred
to in the evidence as the ‘
rookhokkie
’
.
I shall call it the shed. If one turns to the right of the
entrance one finds the door to the lounge. Through the lounge
one can
access the kitchen and bedroom.
[4]
[7]
For some years there have been two gangs active in P.,
the Americans and the Junky Funky Kids (‘JFKs’). The
JFKs’
turf is the area east of B. Avenue as well as Moosa Walk,
being the block lying to the north of Abdulla Moosa Road (which runs
between B. Avenue and P. Avenue). The Americans’ turf is the
area to the west of P. Avenue and north of Eric Viljoen Road
and also
Abdulla Walk, being the block lying to the south of Abdulla Moosa
Road.
[8]
As at January 2016 there was warfare between the two
gangs with frequent gun fights.
[9]
No 1, aka ‘Viro’, was a member of the
Americans before he went to prison in 2013. In prison he became a
member of the
27s. He says that when he came out of prison in October
2015 he was no longer a member of the Americans though he continued
to
associate with them. He has an Americans tattoo and a 27s tattoo.
His date of birth is 19 November 1991. As at January 2016 he was
25
years old.
[10]
No 2, aka ‘Bal’, was an American in
2013/2014 and has an Americans tattoo. He says he withdrew from the
gang at around
the time of the birth of his daughter in October 2014.
His date of birth is 11 February 1997. As at January 2017 he was 18
years
old. No 1 and No 2 are cousins.
[11]
Tasriek Lewin (‘Lewin’, aka ‘Tas’)
and his friend Randall Jones (‘Jones’, aka ‘Pie’),
who both testified for the State, said that they associated with the
JFKs but were not members. Lewin is the victim in one of the
attempted murder charges.
[12]
The State’s principal witnesses regarding the
events of the night in question, and who identified one or both of
the accused
as the perpetrators, were Joseph and Chantal Boltman,
Lewin and Jones. Evidence of a peripheral nature was given by Patrick
and
Frans Boltman and
Igshaan
Diedericks (‘Diedericks’). In general terms,
the State’s evidence was to the following effect.
[13]
In the early evening, after 20h00, Chantal and J.
briefly left the house – Chantal to buy cigarettes from her
father-in-law,
J. to buy a loaf of bread. As they walked out, J.
turned left (east) while Chantal turned right (west). J. told his
mother they
should have a race to see who could get home first.
(Tragically for him, J. won this race.) Joseph was in the lounge
watching TV
with their one-year-old daughter on his lap. An older
daughter was sleeping in the back.
[14]
Lewin and Jones
were walking in the vicinity of the netball court when they
encountered the accused. At least one of the accused,
No 1, was
armed. The accused chased them. Lewin and Jones ran into Joseph’s
yard and tried to close the gate and tin door.
Jones testified that
he heard a weapon being cocked and heard someone outside saying,
‘Dalla!’, an expression meaning
‘Go for it’
or “Do it’. He ran through the lounge into the bedroom,
out of a window and onto the roof.
Joseph and Lewin testified that a
shot was fired through the tin door.
[5]
By this stage Joseph had put his daughter on the chair and got up to
investigate.
[15]
In their efforts to flee, Lewin and Joseph both found
themselves in the shed. No 1 stood at the entrance of the shed.
According
to Joseph, No 1 was joined by No 2 who said, ‘
Dalla
,
my broer!’. (Lewin testified that he did not hear this.) No 1
fired several shots at Lewin, then turned to Joseph and fired
a
single shot at him. Both of them were hit but not fatally. Lewin
tried to flee. No 1 fired several further shots at him, one
of which
struck him in the buttock. Joseph and Lewin both lay on the ground.
[16]
Joseph said that he recognised the shooter as Viro (No
1) and the person who came and stood next to him as Bal (No 2). He
knew them
from the area as persons who associated with the Americans.
Lewin identified the shooter as Viro. He claimed not to be able to
identify the second suspect. He also testified that he did not see
the second suspect inside the yard.
[17]
When the accused were gone, Joseph got up and walked to
the lounge where he found J. lying on the floor. When he lifted the
boy,
he felt wet blood. Lewin testified that when he tried to get
away and was shot in the buttock, he had seen J. running out of the
lounge.
[18]
Chantal was upstairs with her father-in-law when the
shooting began. She ran down the stairs, turned left into B. Avenue
and left
again onto the netball court. She was now at the north-west
corner of the netball court. She saw two men running away from
Joseph’s
house in a south-westerly direction across the netball
court towards B. Avenue. She hurled abuse at them. They turned
around. She
recognised them as Viro and Bal. Like her husband, she
knew them from the area as persons who walked with the Americans.
They ran
off in a southerly direction down B. Avenue. She went to the
entrance of her house where she encountered Lewin. She slapped him.
[19]
When the shooting
subsided, Jones, who was hiding on the roof, walked across the roof
to an electricity pole located a couple of
metres to the right (east)
of the entrance to Joseph’s yard.
[6]
He testified that when he first saw the two assailants on the netball
court he recognised them as Viro and Bal. Afterwards, while
he was
standing on the roof at the electricity pole, he saw them running
off. At one point No 1 stopped to reload his firearm.
After the
accused disappeared, Jones slid down the pole and went off with
Lewin.
[20]
Diedericks took J.
and the distraught parents to Victoria Hospital, a drive of about ten
minutes. Although J. was still alive on
arrival, he died in his
mother’s arms before receiving medical treatment. According to
the hospital death form, which was
admitted,
[7]
the doctor saw J. at 21h10. The doctor recorded J.’s time of
death as about 21h00. If the drive to the hospital took around
ten
minutes, Diedericks and the family must have left P. at 20h50 at the
latest. There was some delay between the shooting and
their departure
for the hospital. The shooting is unlikely to have occurred later
than 20h40.
[21]
The post-mortem
report
[8]
established that J.
suffered a single gunshot wound. The entry was in the left back
shoulder region. The bullet tract went more
or less vertically
downwards towards the right of the body, perforating the fourth rib,
the intercostal muscles, the lower lobe
of the left lung and the left
dome of the diaphragm, lacerating the posterior wall of the stomach,
perforating the small bowel
and the body of the pubis and ending in
the soft tissue just behind the right femur head. The bullet was
removed for forensic examination.
The cause of death was internal
bleeding from the perforation of the chest and abdomen.
[22]
It is not possible to say when J. returned to the house
and where he was when the bullet struck him. Joseph did not see him
return.
Lewin claimed to have seen J. running from the lounge when No
1 was firing further shots at him. According to the forensic
pathologist,
Dr Van der Heyde, the terminal position of the bullet in
J.’s right femur head indicates that his upper leg was flexed,
as
if running or crouching. He could have moved a few metres after
being shot but the blood in his airways would have made this
difficult.
It is not possible to say whether the bullet that struck
him was a direct shot or a ricochet. The bullet did not have the
tell-tale
signs of ricochet damage but, according to the ballistics
expert, a ricochet could not be ruled out. If it was a direct shot,
the
bullet tract indicates that the shooter must have been quite
close to J. (within a metre or two) with the firearm pointed
downwards.
[23]
Joseph received
treatment at Victoria Hospital for a gunshot wound to the left
shoulder.
[9]
The doctor cleaned
the wound and gave him antibiotics and painkillers. The bullet was
not removed. The doctor told Joseph it would
come out on its own.
This happened some months later. Joseph gave the bullet to the
police.
[24]
Lewin went to
Retreat Hospital for treatment. According to the J88 from that
hospital,
[10]
he had two
gunshot wounds on the upper left arm and a third wound on the right
buttock. Lewin testified that the Retreat Hospital
referred him to
Groote Schuur Hospital where he was hospitalised for two weeks. (No
report of his treatment at Groote Schuur
was adduced.) He said
that he was told by the doctor at Groote Schuur that there was a
bullet lodged in his upper right leg but
that the medical team did
not want to remove it for fear of paralysing him.
[25]
Unsurprisingly the evidence given by Joseph, Lewin and
Jones regarding the fast-moving events which occurred after Lewin and
Jones
took refuge in Joseph’s yard is not entirely consistent.
Lewin and Jones said that one ‘Saatje’ was in the yard
when they fled there. Saatje was one of Joseph’s customers.
Joseph could not recall whether Saatje was there that night.
Joseph’s
evidence was that three people, not two, took refuge in his yard,
that two of the three men fled with him into the
shed and that No 1
fired shots at the third man as well. Possibly the third man was in
fact Saatje though Lewin’s evidence
was that Saatje opened the
gate and left before the shooting began. In the circumstances then
prevailing, this does not seem very
plausible. Another possibility is
that when Lewin, having already been shot at, got up to run away,
Joseph mistakenly thought that
the person getting up was a third man.
[26]
No 1 was arrested on the evening of 26 January 2016.
Although the police were looking for him in connection with the
shooting, he
was at that stage arrested for possession of a knife. At
his appearance in court the next morning he was arrested for the
shooting.
No 2 was arrested on the morning of 27 January 2016.
[27]
Seven cartridge cases were recovered at the crime scene.
They were all 9 mm Parabellum cartridges. Ballistic examination
established
that they were fired from the same weapon. Four bullets
were recovered: one in the kitchen, one in the yard, one from J.’s
body and one from Joseph’s body. (A fifth would have been in
Lewin’s body. Two were not found.) They were all
9 mm
calibre bullets. (It is not possible by ballistic examination to link
a bullet to a specific firearm.) One can thus say that
at least seven
shots were fired.
[28]
A gun shot residue sample was taken from No 1’s
hands following his arrest. It is common cause that by this stage he
had washed
his hands. The test was negative.
[29]
Joseph and Chantal
Boltman, Jones and Lewin attended photographic ID parades. Lewin
identified No 1.
[11]
The other
three identified both accused.
[12]
By the time they participated in the ID parades, the witnesses had
already stated that the perpetrators were Viro and (except for
Lewin)
Bal. It is uncontentious that the witnesses knew No 1 and No 2 by
sight from seeing them in the area so it is not surprising
that they
could pick out their photographs.
[30]
No 1’s evidence was that he and his girlfriend,
Nicol Ja., who lived together with his mother at 4 Abdulla Moosa
Walk, went
off on the morning of 26 January 2016 to fetch Nicol’s
children at the house of her Aunt Latiefa Levy who lived in Eric
Viljoen
Road. The children were not there. He left Nicol at Aunt
Latiefa’s house and went to smoke a pipe at his friend Ernie’s
house, also in Eric Viljoen Road. (He did not know Ernie’s
surname.) He was there until about lunchtime. He then went to
the
house of his friend ‘Mulla’ where they smoked mandrax.
(He did not know Mulla’s proper name.) He returned
to Ernie’s
as it was getting dark. There he smoked with Robbie, who lived at
Aunt Latiefa’s house with his girlfriend
Leighana Louw.
[31]
No 1 testified that Robbie left before him to return to
Aunt Latiefa’s house. No 1 left Ernie’s place and
returned to
Aunt Latiefa’s house at around 21h00. One Denzil
Barendse (‘Barendse’), aka ‘Ougat’, a member
of
the Americans, arrived at Aunt Latiefa’s place about five
minutes later. They ate, drank and chatted. Later in the evening
the
police arrived and arrested him, Barendse and one or two others.
[32]
Barendse got out
of prison about one week before the shooting. He passed away on 4
March 2016. Part of No 2’s defence is that
those witnesses who
honestly identified him as one of the perpetrators mistook Barendse
for him, there being some similarity in
appearance. Barendse was 38
years old as at January 2016.
[13]
[33]
No 1 did not call any witnesses in his defence. In
particular, he did not, despite being afforded time to consider this
option,
call Ernie, Mulla or Robbie. The State called Nicol Ja..
[34]
No 2’s version was that he spent the whole of 26
January 2016 (day and night) at home. He lived with his mother, Mrs
Harrison,
at […] C. Court, P. Avenue. Other residents of this
flat were No 2’s girlfriend and No 2’s sister Gail. In
support
of his evidence that he was at home, he called his mother and
sister as witnesses.
[35]
The case turns on identification. In evaluating the
evidence I have reminded myself of the caution to be exercised in
relying on
eyewitness identification. In
S v
Mthetwa
1972 (3) SA 766
(A) Holmes JA said
the following (at 768A-C):
‘
Because
of the fallibility of human observation, evidence of identification
is approached by the Courts with some caution. It is
not enough for
the identifying witness to be honest: the reliability of his
observation must also be tested. This depends on various
factors,
such as lighting, visibility, and eyesight; the proximity of the
witness; his opportunity for observation, both as to
time and
situation; the extent of his prior knowledge of the accused; the
mobility of the scene; corroboration; suggestibility;
the accused’s
face, voice, build, gait, and dress; the result of identification
parades, if any; and, of course, the evidence
by or on behalf of the
accused. The list is not exhaustive. These factors, or such of them
as are applicable in a particular case,
are not individually
decisive, but must be weighed one against the other, in the light of
the totality of the evidence, and the
probabilities, see such cases
as
R v
Masemang
1950
(2) SA 488
(AD);
R
v Dladla & Others
1962
(1) SA 307
(AD) at p 310C;
S
v Mehlape
1963
(2
) SA 29 (AD).’
[36]
Joseph and Chantal Boltman made a favourable impression.
I am satisfied that they were honest. Initially Chantal Boltman
appeared
to be a reluctant witness but from her subsequent behaviour
in the witness box it became apparent that this was because of the
pent-up emotions of reliving the traumatic night on which her child
died. They had no motive falsely to implicate the accused. They
had
no gang affiliations. They would have derived no satisfaction from
seeing the wrong people convicted for killing their child.
[37]
Jones and Lewin were members of a rival gang. One cannot
assume that they are persons of high moral scruples.
[38]
Jones was very softly spoken – so much so that at
one point I suggested the use of an interpreter simply to amplify his
answers.
He struck me as being of below-average intelligence. He
passed standard five at school. I wondered whether his intellectual
faculties
had been impaired by drug use. When cross-examined with
reference to his statement to the police, he said that while there
were
some things he could remember there were others he could not –
his mind was mixed up because of the recent death of his mother
in
prison.
[39]
There were
material conflicts between Jones’ oral testimony and the
statement he made to the investigating officer, W/O Williams
(‘Williams’), on 30 January 2016.
[14]
The statement is in English whereas the interview was in Afrikaans.
(Williams testified that they are required to take statements
in
English because some prosecutors cannot read Afrikaans.) Jones
testified that the statement was not read back to him. He signed
it
without knowing what was in it. The statement recorded that both No 1
and No 2 were carrying firearms. Jones’ oral testimony
was that
he only saw No 1 with a firearm. He did not know how the statement
came to record that No 2 also had a firearm. There
were three
paragraphs dealing with a third perpetrator, Archie, who supposedly
fired a shot at Jones while he was on the roof.
Jones said he did not
know where Williams had got this from.
[40]
Williams’ testimony was that everything in the
statement came from Jones and that he read the statement back to
Jones, translating
it into Afrikaans. While there may have been a
misunderstanding about whether both or only one of the accused were
armed, the part
of the statement dealing with Archie must either have
come from Jones or have been fabricated by Williams. The latter is
implausible.
Williams testified that he investigated Jones’
allegation regarding Archie (real name Faud Brenner) by taking a
statement
from the latter. In the light of this statement and the
fact that no other witnesses implicated Brenner, he did not remain a
person
of interest in connection with the shooting.
[41]
It emerged during
the evidence of Mrs Harrison (No 2’s mother) that Jones may
have made a further statement to the police.
As a result, Mr
Badenhorst applied to reopen the State’s case by recalling
Williams. To Mr Badenhorst’s evident surprise,
it transpired
that Jones had made a further statement to Williams’ colleague,
Sgt Slingers, on 20 October 2016
[15]
in which he said that he had falsely implicated No 2 in his earlier
statement and that the perpetrators had been No 1 and Barendse.
The
statement never found its way into the docket. Williams’
unsatisfactory explanation was that by then the docket had already
been sent to the State advocate. (This had not prevented other more
recent statements from being sent to Mr Badenhorst.)
[42]
Jones was recalled to deal with this further statement.
He testified that he had been pressured by Mrs Harrison and his own
mother,
who was a drug user, to change his version so as to exculpate
No 2. He claimed that Mrs Harrison had offered his mother money. He
was scared of his own mother.
[43]
I did not gain the impression from Jones, in the witness
box, that he was being untruthful. However the circumstances I have
summarised
above show that great caution is required in relying on
his evidence.
[44]
Lewin was an
unsatisfactory witness. Initially his evidence went well. However
towards the end of his evidence in chief he was invited
to explain a
material discrepancy between his first statement to the police, made
in the early hours of 27 January 2016 while he
was at the Retreat
Hospital,
[16]
and a further
statement made on 23 February 2017,
[17]
shortly before the trial started. In the first statement he said that
the shooter was No 2 and that he could not recognise the
other
suspect because his face was hidden by a scarf. In the second
statement he said that the shooter was No 1 and that he could
not
recognise the other suspect because his face was hidden by a scarf.
He said both suspects had firearms.
[45]
Initially Lewin refused to answer questions regarding
the discrepancies. With reference to s 189 of the Criminal Procedure
Act,
I warned him of the consequences of his refusal to respond to
questions. A short while later I asked him whether he was frightened.
He eventually said yes but refused to say why. With the agreement of
counsel, his evidence continued in camera but without significant
improvement. (In fairness I should mention that he was in custody. If
he was under any sort of threat, he may have felt particularly
vulnerable in prison.)
[46]
As best I could understand him, Lewin claimed, in making
his first statement, to have been influenced by Jones to say that the
shooter
was No 2. This would suggest that, in the immediate aftermath
of the incident, Jones identified No 2 as being one of the
perpetrators.
Since Jones admittedly did not see the shooting, Lewin
either misunderstood him as having said that No 2 was the shooter or
Jones
had fabricated this piece of information.
[47]
Lewin said that when he was discharged from Groote
Schuur, Jones told him that No 1, not No 2, had been the shooter. No
1 was the
person whom Lewin picked out at the photographic
identification parade held on 25 May 2016.
[48]
It is thus obvious that great caution needs to be
exercised in placing reliance on Lewin’s testimony.
Nevertheless, when it
was put to him in cross-examination that he had
not seen No 1 on the scene that night, he insisted that Viro had
indeed been there.
It was put to him that he was mistaken. He
replied, no, it was Viro. My contemporaneous note of his responses at
this stage was
that they had the ring of truth.
[49]
The State witnesses knew the accused by sight from
seeing them in the area. They knew their nicknames. The Boltmans
testified that
the accused ‘walked with’ the Americans.
Jones and Lewin were members of a rival gang. It is common cause that
both
accused were once members of the Americans gang. No 1 said that
he was a member of the gang until he went to prison in 2013. Upon
his
release in October 2015, he continued to associate with the Americans
even though on his version he was no longer a member
of the gang. No
2 was a member of the Americans during 2013/2014 though claimed to
have disassociated from them at around the time
of the birth of his
daughter in October 2014. Both of the accused said that they knew who
Joseph Boltman was. It is not surprising
that the State witnesses
knew the accused by sight and their evidence to this effect was not
challenged.
[50]
Joseph Boltman’s identification was based on the
brief period during which the shooter and his associate stood at the
entrance
of the shed. Joseph testified that there was a light on the
inside wall facing the entrance and that it provided good
illumination
in both directions, including in the shed. He had no
doubt that the two perpetrators were the accused. He acknowledged
that the
episode in the shed lasted only a few seconds and was
frightening but said it was not possible that he was mistaken –
he
had enough time to recognise them, he looked them in their faces.
[51]
Joseph was shown a
photograph of Barendse.
[18]
Barendse was not known to him. He acknowledged that No 2 and Barendse
had a similar appearance though he does not seem to have
been in any
doubt that the second person was No 2, not Barendse.
[52]
He denied that either of the suspects was wearing a
scarf over his face.
[53]
I have already referred to the fact that Joseph
testified that there was a third person in the shed. This person may
have been Saatje.
Alternatively Joseph may have been mistaken about
the presence of a third person. Counsel for the accused submitted
that Joseph’s
evidence in this respect showed that his
observations were not accurate and reliable though they did not
question his honesty.
There is, however, a qualitative difference
between Joseph’s possible error about the presence of a third
person and his
identification of the accused. Joseph did not know
Lewin. His attention would have been on the assailants. He looked the
shooter
in the face and recognised him.
[54]
Chantal Boltman’s
identification occurred as the perpetrators were fleeing across the
netball court. It is common cause that
the netball court was
illuminated by a light mounted on a pole situated on the south side
of the court opposite the entrance to
Joseph’s house. Although
other witnesses described this as a floodlight, W/O Abrahams, a
police photographer and plan compiler,
revisited the scene on 5 March
2017 and took photographs. He said the light was an ordinary street
lamp. He took some night photographs
without using a flash.
[19]
According to the witnesses, the light provided good illumination
across the whole court. It also appears from W/O Abrahams’
photographs that there was a street lamp in B. Avenue on the western
side of the court.
[20]
Diedericks said that the netball court lamp was often broken but
could not recall whether it was burning on the night of 26 January
2016. The other witnesses, including Chantal, were certain that the
light was working that night.
[55]
I am satisfied
that there was sufficient illumination for Chantal Boltman to make an
identification. Although she only had a few
seconds to look at them,
she knew them by sight. They were about 8 m from her, and about
12 m from the court lamp, when
they looked around.
[21]
They lived nearby. She named them to the police at the earliest
opportunity (while she was at Victoria Hospital).
[56]
Under cross-examination she was absolutely certain that
one of the two suspects was No 1. (I should mention that No 1 has a
reasonably
distinctive face.) In regard to No 2, she conceded that he
and Barendse looked quite similar and was prepared to accept that she
might have mistaken Barendse for No 2.
[57]
Chantal’s
first written statement to the police was made at 09h00 on 27 January
2016.
[22]
In that statement,
taken by Williams, she purported to say that she had seen two members
of the JFKs running into her yard, one
of them known to her as Tas;
that they were being chased by two members of the Americans, known to
her as Viro and Bal; that both
Viro and Bal were armed; and that,
after hearing shooting, she saw both of them running out with
firearms still in their hands.
She said that the statement was
incorrect in recording that she had seen the persons going into her
house and in recording that
both of the accused were armed. These
errors were corrected in her statement of 22 February 2017, prepared
shortly before the trial
began. She confirmed that the earlier
statement had been read back to her and that she signed it. She could
not say how the errors
occurred but denied having given Williams the
incorrect information.
[58]
The discrepancy between her first statement and
subsequent testimony is undoubtedly a point of criticism. The
explanation may be
(though she disavowed it) that she was combining
what she herself observed with what she had heard from others. Since
on her version
she saw both accused as well as Lewin and Jones in the
immediate aftermath of the shooting, it would have made sense to her
that
the accused had chased Lewin and Jones into her house. Possibly
this was an inference. If she told Williams things which she herself
had not observed, she should not have done so. One should not,
however, judge her too harshly. She made her statement barely 12
hours after her son had been killed. She is unlikely to have had any
sleep and would still have been traumatised. She may have
reconstructed the scenario from what she herself had observed. She
may not have appreciated the importance of limiting herself
to things
she herself saw. Williams may have put things too strongly in the
statement. She may not have been following carefully
as he read the
statement back to her; or she may have felt that it was true in its
essential details and that this was good enough
to sign it.
[59]
Whatever the explanation, I am satisfied that she was an
honest witness. If she was dishonest, she could have adhered to what
was
recorded in her first statement, thus making the case against the
accused stronger.
[60]
Mr Nel submitted that if Chantal included information in
the first statement which she only learnt from others, the same might
apply
to her identification of the accused. He said it would have
been natural for Joseph and Chantal to discuss the matter. They may
each have influenced each other. I accept that the Boltmans may have
discussed the case. However I am satisfied as to their honesty.
Chantal Boltman identified No 1 and No 2 as the perpetrators at
Victoria Hospital, at a time when her husband was inconsolable
and
unable to speak sensibly to the police. She was willing to concede
the possibility of a mistake in relation to No 2. This is
a further
guarantee of her truthfulness.
[61]
She denied that either of the suspects was wearing a
scarf over his face.
[62]
I have already referred to the evidence of Jones and
Lewin. Jones was consistent in identifying No 1 as one of the
perpetrators.
He had occasion to see him before they fled into
Joseph’s yard and again from the roof. In regard to No 2, he
was steadfast
in oral testimony that he was with No 1. Jones knew who
Barendse was. He testified that his father and Barendse used to smoke
together
and that Barendse robbed his father. He thought that
Barendse’s skin colour was lighter than No 2’s. He said
Barendse
was not on the scene that night.
[63]
The consistency of Jones’ identification of No 2
as one of the perpetrators is, however, undermined by his statement
of 20
October 2016. I shall return to this aspect when evaluating the
evidence adduced on behalf of No 2.
[64]
Lewin’s oral evidence was consistent that No 1 was
the shooter and that he could not identify the second suspect. His
identification
of No 1 is called into question by the fact that in
his first statement the only perpetrator he identified was No 2. That
statement
was taken at 02h45 on the morning of 27 January 2016 while
he was at Retreat Hospital. He was injured and probably still in
shock.
At the identification parade on 25 May 2016 he picked out No 1
as the person who shot at him. There is no evidence that he was
unduly influenced. If he had been brought under pressure by the
police, he would presumably have picked out both of the accused.
I
have already mentioned that in cross-examination his evidence that No
1 was the shooter had the ring of truth about it.
[65]
Since Lewin knew who No 2 was, why did he not also
identify him? One possibility is that he was influenced by others.
Jones testified
that Mrs Harrison not only placed pressure on him
(through his mother) to protect No 2 but said that she would also be
approaching
Lewin. Perhaps this occurred. Another possibility is that
Lewin was truthfully unsure who the other person was.
[66]
For reasons I have explained, I must be cautious about
placing undue weight on the testimony of Jones and Lewin.
Nevertheless I
can take into account that their evidence, insofar as
No 1 is concerned, accords with that of the Boltmans and that Jones
provides
some additional support for the Boltmans’
identification of No 2 as one of the perpetrators.
[67]
I now turn to a consideration of the alibis offered by
the accused, starting with No 1. He did not impress me as a witness.
He came
across as sullen, not really caring about his answers.
However I do not place too much weight on his demeanour since this
might
be a mantle developed over several years of gang membership in
and out of prison.
[68]
In his warning
statement, made on 28 January 2016, No 1 said that he had no
knowledge of the incident and that he had been with
his girlfriend N.
Ja. (‘Ja.’), at Aunt Latiefa’s house.
[23]
As will be apparent, he only got to Latiefa’s house at around
21h00, after the shooting. If he had an alibi, it was that
he was at
Ernie’s house at the time of the shooting. In his warning
statement he did not say that he had been at Ernie’s
house
during the first part of the evening. He did not call Ernie or Robbie
or anyone else from Ernie’s house to support
his version. One
thus has only his evidence that he was at Ernie’s house, and
not in the vicinity of the netball court, at
the time of the
shooting.
[69]
Because of the alibi offered in the warning statement,
Williams approached Ja. and Latiefa Levy for statements. The former
provided
a statement and was called by the State. The latter told
Williams that she did not know No 1 and did not want to become
involved.
[70]
Ja. was a good and confident witness though she may have
enjoyed the drama of the occasion. She testified that as at January
2016
she and No 1 were in a relationship. Her evidence about their
movements on 26 January 2016 differed from the version No 1
subsequently
gave in evidence. She said that Barendse spent the night
of 25 January 2016 with them at No 1’s mother’s house.
When
she woke up the next morning, No 1 and Barendse were gone. She
inferred that they had left together. She went looking for No 1 in
his usual haunts. She did not see him at Ernie’s place. When
she could not find him, she went to Latiefa’s house, knowing
that No 1 often went there to smoke with Robbie and Latiefa’s
son Shafiek (aka
‘
Fikkie’
).
[71]
She testified that No 1 arrived there sometime after
21h00. She initially said that he arrived together with Barendse. In
cross-examination
she said No 1 got there first and that Barendse
followed within about one minute. No 1 washed his hands in a mop
bucket that was
standing at the front door. Shortly after No 1 and
Barendse’s arrival, a man called ‘Boera’ came to
the house
and said that ‘they have shot the Aai’s son’.
Barendse vomited in the bathroom (whether this was a reaction to
the
report is unclear). Nicol, No 1, Barendse, Robbie and others then
moved to a bungalow at the back of the house. According to
Nicol, No
1 and Barendse smoked a pipe. They appeared at one point to be
arguing. It was there that they were arrested. (Barendse
was released
quite promptly.)
[72]
Ja.’ evidence is materially at odds with No 1’s.
It is clear that, contrary to No 1’s warning statement, Ja.
does
not provide him with an alibi for the time of the shooting. When
he was cross-examined about this, he said that Nicol had been with
him at Ernie’s. Apart from the fact that this is not the alibi
he gave in his warning statement, it was not put to Nicol
that she
had been with No 1 at Ernie’s. No 1 was asked whether he had
informed his lawyer that Nicol was with him at Ernie’s.
He said
no, he had forgotten. It is clear, in my view, that he was adapting
his alibi in the witness box. Furthermore, upon completion
of No 1’s
evidence, Mr Nel required an adjournment for the rest of the day in
order to investigate whether Ernie, Robbie
and/or Mulla should be
called. The fact that they might be able to supply No 1 with an alibi
evidently came as a surprise to Mr
Nel.
[73]
No 1 did not dispute that Barendse vomited. He thought
Barendse arrived about five minutes after himself. He denied having
been
with Barendse prior to their arrival. In fact he said he had met
Barendse for the first time that night. He admitted washing his
hands
in the mop bucket. He said that this was to get rid of the smell of
mandrax. This does not seem very plausible. If he was
the shooter, he
probably knew enough about guns and criminal investigations to
realise that he should wash his hands.
[74]
No 1 does not bear any onus of showing where he was at
the time of the shooting. The question is whether I can be satisfied
beyond
reasonable doubt that he was one of the perpetrators. It is
essentially his word against that of the identification of four
witnesses,
two of whom at least were honest witnesses who were
familiar with his appearance and who had no motive falsely to
implicate him.
In
S v Mathebula
2010
(1) SACR 55
(SCA) para 11 Heher JA observed that the ‘vulnerability
of unsupported alibi defences is notorious, depending, as it does,
so
much upon the court’s assessment of the truth of the accused’s
testimony’. For this reason corroboration by
other witnesses is
important (cf
S v Carolus
[2008] ZASCA 14
;
2008
(2) SACR 207
(SCA) para 28;
S v
Mhlungu
[2014] ZAKZPHC 27 para 47).
[75]
No 1 had motive to do Jones and Lewin harm. They were
members of the rival gang. No 1 openly associated with the Americans
upon
his release from jail in October 2015. He testified that in
November 2015 he was shot in the leg by one of the JFKs. About a
month
later he was again shot at by the JFKs but was not hit. Jones’
evidence was that for several years No 1 would come to his
house with
his cousin Kosie to smoke. No 1 said that he did not know Jones or
Lewin but acknowledged having seen them with other
JFKs in the
vicinity of the Somali shop where the JFKs used to congregate.
Although No 1 denied this, Jones testified that No 1
had chased him
on several occasions.
[76]
It was argued that No 1 had no motive to shoot Joseph
Boltman. Generally speaking, that would probably have been true for
any member
of the Americans gang, since Joseph had no gang
affiliations, yet undoubtedly somebody shot at him after pursuing two
persons with
JFK affiliations into his house. No 1 may have shot at
Joseph because the latter could identify him. Or No 1 may, in the
heat of
the moment, had mistakenly thought that the second person in
the shed was Jones, not Boltman.
[77]
All things considered, I am satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that No 1 was the shooter and that his evidence to the contrary
is
false.
[78]
No 2 made a better impression in the witness box than No
1. He was supported in his version by his mother and sister. There is
nothing
about their demeanour which I can criticise. Mrs Harrison in
particular came across as unsophisticated but genuine.
[79]
It is not in dispute that No 2 is the father of a
daughter born in October 2014. He testified that. when it was
discovered that
his girlfriend was pregnant, his mother urged him to
put aside his gang affiliation to concentrate on fatherhood. Mrs
Harrison
and Gail confirmed this. No 2 says that he dissociated from
the Americans at this time. He told the then leader of the gang in
P., one ‘Skollie’, that he was leaving. He returned his
revolver to Skollie.
[80]
No 1 and No 2 both testified that although they were
cousins they did not move around together. Importantly, No 1’s
girlfriend,
Ja., confirmed this, as did Mrs Harrison and Gail. This
is not implausible, given that No 1 was nearly seven years older than
No
2.
[81]
As to his movements on 26 January 2016, No 2 testified
that he was at home the whole day. His mother returned from work at
around
17h00. His mother and Gail were there the whole evening. No 2
and his girlfriend watched movies (there were television sets in the
lounge, in Mrs Harrison’s room and in Gail’s room). No 2
was preparing noodles when Gail received a telephone call
from
another sister, Yolanda, reporting that there had been a shooting in
B. Avenue and that people were saying that Viro and Bal
were
involved. There was a second phone call from Yolanda to say that the
victims of the shooting were Aaiman Joey, his boy and
another person
and that the child was dead.
[82]
Gail and Mrs Harrison confirmed No 2’s version in
its essential details. There were minor discrepancies, such as the
room
in which No 2 was watching television, but not such as to
justify a conclusion that the evidence was definitely false.
[83]
It is perhaps surprising, in view of the information
received from Yolanda, that No 2 and his family did not immediately
contact
the police to report what they had heard and to say that No 2
had been at home with his family the whole evening. They knew that
Williams was a detective at Grassy Park who dealt with murder cases.
On the other hand, No 2 made no attempt to hide. He was at
home with
Gail when the police arrived the next morning to arrest him.
[84]
Gail accompanied No 2 to the Grassy Park police station.
She waited for some time. Eventually they told her that No 2 had been
charged
with murder. She told the police that she had been with her
brother the previous night. She went to Williams’ office and
repeated this. She said he did not take a statement from her.
[85]
Williams’ evidence was that he tried on several
occasions to interview Gail for purposes of taking a statement (he
wanted
to check No 2’s alibi) but that she was uncooperative.
She denied this.
[86]
Mrs Harrison testified that she learnt of the arrest
when she got home from work on 27 January 2016. She got Williams’
number
from one of her daughters and phoned him. She knew him
sufficiently well to call him by his first name. She told Williams
that
her son could not have been involved because he had been at
home. Williams replied that there were witnesses who said No 2 was
one of the perpetrators. According to Mrs Harrison, Williams said
that she should go and see what clothes Ougat (ie Barendse) had
been
wearing. She replied that she did not know Ougat. She testified that
Williams did not approach her for a statement but that
she did
eventually make a statement in November 2016.
[87]
It was put to Mrs Harrison that Williams would deny that
she had phoned him on the Wednesday and would deny saying anything
about
Ougat. To both propositions she replied that Williams was
lying. These answers were given with what appeared to be genuine
passion.
(I should mention that by the time Mrs Harrison allegedly
spoke with Williams, the latter had received information from Yolanda
that Barendse might have been involved in the shooting. The source of
Yolanda’s information was Ricardo Harrison (aka ‘
Vissie’
),
the son of Mrs Harrison’s sister Sophie. Williams testified
that he approached Ricardo but the latter was not willing to
talk
with him.)
[88]
Mrs Harrison testified that some months after the
shooting she received information from her daughter, Nikita, that Pie
(Jones)
wanted to see her. She did not know Jones. Nikita took her to
Jones’ house where one ‘Poen’ introduced her to
Jones. According to Mrs Harrison, Jones told her that he knew who had
done the shooting. Mrs Harrison told him that he had to tell
the
truth because her son had not been involved and that he had a young
child to raise. Jones told her that the dead boy’s
father (ie
Joseph Boltman) knew about the whole thing. Jones told Mrs Harrison
that he had run into the house and climbed onto
the roof. He said
that from the roof he had seen Chantal Boltman slapping a youngster
(a ‘klong’, presumably Lewin)
and that he (Jones) had
come down from the roof and pulled the youngster away from Chantal.
He said No 2 was not involved and that
he would testify to this in
court. He asked when No 2 would next be appearing in court.
[89]
No 2 was in fact appearing in the Wynberg court the next
day. Mrs Harrison, Jones, Poen and other members of the Harrison
family
went to court. Mrs Harrison testified that they spoke with the
prosecutor and No 2’s legal aid lawyer. Jones told the lawyers
that No 2 was not part of the shooting. The prosecutor took down
Jones’ name and address.
[90]
Mrs Harrison’s evidence was that Williams was at
the hearing. He was also with them in the lift as they were leaving.
Jones
told Williams that he wanted to make a statement because No 2
had not been involved. Williams told Jones that it was not necessary
for him to make a statement but Jones insisted that he wanted to do
so. Williams told him to be at Grassy Park police station at
14h00.
The Harrison/Jones entourage took a taxi to Grassy Park where they
waited for Williams. When he did not arrive, Mrs Harrison’s
daughter, Elenore, found another policeman (Sgt Slingers) to take
Jones’ statement. When he emerged from Slingers’
office,
Jones told Mrs Harrison that the policeman had told him that Williams
would lock him up for giving false information. (The
statement taken
by Slingers is the one which did not find its way into the docket and
which only emerged when Williams was re-called.)
[91]
It was put to Mrs Harrison that Williams would deny
having been at Wynberg court when the Harrison/Jones entourage was
there and
that he had only heard about it from a colleague. It was
put to her that Williams would deny the supposed conversation in the
lift.
Mrs Harrison seemed genuinely shocked at these propositions and
said that Williams was lying.
[92]
Jones was recalled after the Slingers statement came to
light. His version was very different from that of Mrs Harrison. His
evidence
was that Mrs Harrison had put pressure on him, through his
mother (a drug user), to exculpate No 2, inter alia by offering his
mother money. He said Mrs Harrison did not speak directly with him.
She spoke with his mother outside the house while he was inside.
He
overheard their conversation. He confirmed that on the following day
the Harrison/Jones entourage went to the Wynberg court.
He denied,
however, that he had spoken with any lawyers or that he had seen
Williams that day. He confirmed that they went to Grassy
Park police
station where he made the statement to Slingers. He said that his
statement to Slingers was false and that the true
position is that
the perpetrators were No 1 and No 2.
[93]
Although the
witnesses could not remember the dates, Jones’ statement to
Slingers
[24]
was made on 20
October 2016, which coincides with a date on which the matter served
before the court in Wynberg.
[25]
Mr Badenhorst informed me that Williams’ pocketbook for the
period 18-27 October 2016 was missing, so we do not have the
pocketbook to tell us about Williams’ movements on 20 October
2016
[94]
There are undoubtedly some strange features about Mrs
Harrison’s version. If Jones wanted to talk to her, there was
no reason
why he and his mother could not have gone to Mrs Harrison’s
house. They lived nearby. The fact that Mrs Harrison went to Jones’
place may suggest that the initiative came from her, not Jones. What
may support this view is that No 2 was appearing in court
the
following day. Jones would not have known this. It seems somewhat
coincidental that Jones made his approach on the day before
the
hearing. Mrs Harrison seems to have displayed an unusual lack of
curiosity. Although Jones allegedly told her that he knew
who was
responsible for the shooting, on her version Jones never told her who
the perpetrators were and she never asked. There
is no reason why
Jones should have decided to change his story in October 2016 or
revert to his original version a few months later.
It was rather
convenient that Jones changed his story at a time when Barendse was
no longer alive to deny it.
[95]
In short, and despite Mrs Harrison’s good
performance in the witness box, I am somewhat sceptical of her
evidence about how
Jones came to make his statement to Slingers.
Jones, I may say, struck me as a person who might well be susceptible
to bullying.
Furthermore, when he was being cross-examined it was
never put to him by Mr Adams that he was the one who had approached
Mrs Harrison;
his version, not challenged in cross-examination, was
that she had approached him to stand with Bal.
[96]
On the other hand, and although there was nothing to
criticise about Williams’ demeanour in the witness box, there
are question
marks about the integrity of the investigation in so far
as No 2 is concerned. It is not implausible that Mrs Harrison phoned
Williams
upon learning of her son’s arrest. Any mother would be
concerned for her child. If she did contact Williams, he took no
effort
to get a statement from her. There is a factual dispute as to
whether Gail was cooperative. Again, it is not implausible that Gail
was willing to make a statement in defence of her brother (whether or
not her alibi for him was the truth). After all, she was
a willing
witness in his defence at the trial. There is some doubt as to the
vigour with which Williams tried to set up an interview
with her.
Most importantly, there is this disturbing fact that Jones’
statement to Slingers was not part of the docket. Had
it not been for
Mrs Harrison’s testimony, and my indication to counsel that I
might wish to have Williams recalled, the statement
may never have
seen the light of day. Williams did not deny knowledge of the
statement. He had no satisfactory explanation for
not having
disclosed it at an earlier time. I mentioned earlier that Mrs
Harrison testified that she made a statement to the police
in
November 2016. If she did, that statement has never been produced.
[97]
There is independent evidence which lends some support
to No 2’s protestations of innocence. Nicol’s testimony
is that
No 1 and No 2 did not move around the neighbourhood together.
Although there was a family connection, they do not seem to have been
close associates or friends. There was a significant age difference.
The birth of No 2’s child in October 2014 provides a
plausible
basis for his having withdrawn from gang activity. Importantly, one
knows that shortly after the shooting occurred No
1 arrived at Aunt
Latiefa’s house in the company of Barendse. Although Barendse’s
vomiting may have been unrelated
to the news of the death of Joseph
Boltman’s child, it could have been caused by the shock of
realising what he and No 1
had done. Joseph Boltman acknowledged that
there was some similarity in appearance between Barendse and No 2.
Joseph’s attention
may have been focused on the shooter rather
than his associate. Chantal Boltman went further, accepting the
possibility that it
was a case of mistaken identity. Lewin did not
identify anyone as the second perpetrator. When asked whether he
tried to interview
Barendse, Williams said that he saw him on several
occasions while patrolling but that Barendse had run away.
[98]
Speaking for myself, I do not think that the similarity
between Barendse and No 2 is particularly close, and there is the
further
circumstance that Barendse was 38 whereas No 2 was 20. One
does not know how old Barendse was in the image of him appearing in
the record but I do not think mistaken identity is very likely with
such a significant age difference.
[99]
No 2 can also be criticised for not calling, as a
witness, his girlfriend Jolita van Graan. On the other hand it cannot
be said
that she would necessarily have been more independent than
Mrs Harrison and Gail. Even if their attachment has come to an end as
a result of No 2’s incarceration for more than a year, he is
the father of their child.
[100]
All things considered, I think there is sufficient doubt
that I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that No 2 has been
correctly
identified as one of the perpetrators.
[101]
On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt in my
mind that No 1 was the shooter. On this basis he is guilty on the two
counts
of attempted murder (in relation to the shots fired at Lewin
and Joseph Boltman)
[102]
In regard to the murder count, it is unlikely that No 1
had the direct intention of killing J.. He may not even have seen J..
The
question is whether, by firing at least seven shots within the
confines of a house of modest dimensions, he foresaw that other
people who might be there could be struck and was reckless as to
whether or not they were killed. No 1 knew that the house belonged
to
Aaiman Joey. He had bought dagga from him in the past. He knew Joseph
had a wife and children. He had seen J. playing on the
netball court.
The shooting happened at night, at a time when the family could be
expected to be at home. No 1 is not a stranger
to gang warfare. It is
a notorious fact that innocent people, including children, are
sometimes injured or killed in the crossfire.
In the absence of
countervailing evidence from the accused, I am satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that No 1 in fact foresaw the
possibility that
innocent people in the home might be hit by bullets and was reckless
as to the consequences. There was thus dolus
eventualis, coupled with
dolus indirectus, in relation to J.’s death (see
S
v
Nhlapo
& Another
1981 (2) 744
(A) at 750H-751D;
Director of Public
Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius
2016 (2) SA
317
(SCA) para 31).
[103]
No 1 was accompanied by a second person. I accept Joseph
Boltman’s evidence that the second person entered the yard and
associated
himself with the shooting, including the reckless
disregard for others in the house who might be struck. The murder and
the two
attempted murders were thus carried out in the furtherance of
a common purpose.
[104]
No 1 must also be convicted on count 5 and 6 since he
was in possession of a firearm and at least seven rounds of
ammunition. By
virtue of s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
the onus rested on him to prove (on a balance of probability) that he
was licensed
to possess the firearm and ammunition. He did not
attempt to discharge that burden.
[105]
In regard to count 1, it is clear that No 1 entered
Joseph Boltman’s property without the permission of the lawful
occupier.
He is thus guilty of trespass. (An alternative way in which
he might have been charged was housebreaking with intent to commit
murder.)
[106]
In the circumstances, No 1 is found guilty on all the
charges while No 2 is found not guilty on all the charges.
______________________
ROGERS
J
APPEARANCES
For
the State
Mr
L Badenhorst
Office
of Director of Public Prosecutions
Western
Cape
For
First Accused
Mr
Nel
Instructed
by
Legal
Aid
Cape
Town
For
Second Accused
Mr
Adams
Instructed
by
Legal
Aid
Cape
Town
[1]
The upstairs residence and part of the stairway can been seen on the
left of photo C1. See also the sketch plan forming part
of exhibit
“V”. The dwelling marked ‘38D’ is the
upstairs dwelling. Joseph’s house is marked ‘Primary
scene as per sketch’
[2]
The entrance is between the two green vibracrete panels seen in
photo C1. The netball court is in the foreground.
[3]
See photo B2.
[4]
See the sketch plan forming part of exhibit “B”. Points
A4 to A6 are in the shed. Point A3 is at the entrance to
the shed.
Photo B3 is taken from the lounge looking out towards the
yard/passage with the shed in the distance.
[5]
The shot was probably fired through the rectangular hole visible in
photos C4 and C5. The small round hole beneath the rectangular
hole
was not, according to the ballistic expert, a bullet hole. The
bullet hole found in the partition wall dividing the back
of the
yard/passage and the kitchen can be aligned with the rectangular
hole (cf photos C24-C34).
[6]
The pole can be seen in photo B1.
[7]
Exhibit “N1”.
[8]
[8]
Exhibit
“N2”.
[9]
Exhibit “N6”.
[10]
Exhibit “N7”.
[11]
Exhibit “K”.
[12]
Exhibit “F” (Chantal Boltman); exhibit “J”
(Jones). The exhibit dealing with Joseph Boltman's identification
was not adduced.
[13]
See exhibit “D” which records his date of birth as 1 May
1978.
[14]
Exhibit “T”.
[15]
Exhibit “Z”.
[16]
Exhibit “L”.
[17]
Exhibit “M”.
[18]
Exhibit “D”.
[19]
Exhibit “V”.
[20]
See photo V29 which is taken from east to west. The street lamp on
B. Avenue can be seen midway between the points C (where Chantal
Boltman was standing) and D (where, according to her, the
perpetrators were when she saw them).
[21]
See the
sketch plan which is the first page of exhibit
“V”.
[22]
Exhibit “G”.
[23]
Exhibit “P”.
[24]
Exhibit “Z”.
[25]
Exhibit “Y” p 9.