Referred to as: client · Mr Carrim · Client
No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Adv van den Heever's instructions are that General Mkhwanazi told the client there is a warrant of arrest out for him related to the Johannesburg High Court matter.
“my instructions are that General Mkhwanazi told the client there is a warrant of arrest out for you. You will be arrested on the matter that is currently part heard in the High Court of Johannesburg.”
The Commission relies on evidence including CCTV footage, Apple Pay data, and geolocation data, but the clinician asserts that such evidence only shows movement and does not determine the clinical issue of why the client cannot attend the Commission to give evidence.
“The medical practitioner says that the Commission relies on a bunch of evidence such as CCTV footage, Apple Pay data regarding payment accounts, movement data gleaned through geolocation data... is all that demonstrates is movement of some kind... is of no value in determining the clinical issue as to why the client cannot attend or attend the Commission to give evidence”
The video footage related to the matter is unnecessary, inappropriate as evidence, and does not serve any legitimate purpose, particularly given that allegations have been admitted by the client and representatives already.
“I am going to respectfully submit that the video footage is unnecessary today, and more than being unnecessary, it is also not appropriate and does not serve a legitimate purpose ... the allegations made by the Commission have now been admitted, answered to, and amplified by my client and the people deposing on his behalf ... the footage is not needed to prove admitted facts”
The medical practitioner's opinion is that video and geolocation footage does not have clinical value and therefore is inappropriate as evidence for the medical issue related to the client's postponement.
“the position of the clinician, for reasons that you know which are recorded on the papers, is all that demonstrates is movement of some kind ... the movement of some kind is of no value in determining the clinical issue as to why the client cannot attend or attend the Commission to give evidence”
The Commission's complaint regarding the client's postponement is medically based and therefore secondary evidence like CCTV or geolocation data without clinical analysis is inappropriate.
“...what underlies the Commission's concern and the Commission's complaint regarding my client's postponement is a medical issue ... this geodata information or CCTV footage or whatever it is, on its own, not being led through a clinician and not being analysed by a clinician or responded to by a clinician is inappropriate secondary evidence which is being used to gain say the medical opinion expressed about that exact approach”
The medical issue causing the postponement does not relate to disputed facts about the client being at Durbanville on the day and time in question.
“the facts are not in dispute and the client was at Durbanville on the day and time”
The secondary evidence including CCTV footage, geolocation data, and the opposing party's own doctor's report do not challenge the client's medical evidence substantively.
“this secondary evidence, the CCTV footage, the geolocation data, even their own doctor's report, does not challenge the medical evidence properly in the way that the medical evidence is in front of you”
There have been repeated slippages in speech by Ms Hassim that required interjections and raised concerns about damage to client rights and dignity in relation to confidentiality claims.
“This is now the second incident where slippage is occurring ... the fact that I have had to record the objection now elevates the issue and create[s] the very damage that we have tried to protect my client from ... regarding the impact that can have on the dignity and privacy rights of someone who has made an express claim for confidentiality to avoid this exact situation.”
Commissioner Khumalo says the doctor only saw the client from a certain period and thus cannot express an opinion on the earlier period due to lack of knowledge.
“this doctor only saw your client from when, because the period from March until 13 April, he cannot express an opinion on that. He simply does not know what the position was. He was not there.”
During the plea deal, there are negotiations beyond the wording of the deal involving investigators, the client and attorneys where information, names, and potential suspicions come up.
“During a plea deal, there is much more than the simple wording in the plea deal that takes place. There is other negotiations that happens between the investigators, the client, and the attorney and during those investigations, there is names that come up, there is information given, etcetera and during that negotiations...”
Mr Vally does not oppose the in-camera application but cannot extract instructions from his client at this stage.
“it is not because there is an intention to not oppose. It is simply because we are unable to extract instructions at this stage from our client”
It is unfair and prejudicial for a witness to be ambushed with documents they had not previously seen, which damages their credibility in answering questions.
“I do not appreciate and it cannot be fair that my client is being ambushed on documents that he had never had sight of and he is being told you are not telling the truth, because this goes into his credibility in terms of answering.”
Mr Ngoato was not at the inquiry at 9:30 because someone was amending his client's files in his absence without informing him, which he took serious exception to.
“I found somebody consulting with my client in my absence, amending my files in my absence and I took serious exception to that.”
Documents were handed to Mr Ngoato's client and placed in the client's file without informing Mr Ngoato, which impacted his ability to guide the client.
“They went and handed documents to my client in my absence and to put into the client's file . . . I will not be able to guide the client if documents have been slotted in his file without me knowing about it.”
The safety of a witness who deals with informers and operational contacts may be at risk if their testimony is given publicly, as recognition by others may incorrectly label those associated as informers, which increases the risk to the witness.
“because the witness deals with informers and the likes, and operational contacts, their safety may be at risk ... somebody who has witnessed our client with a particular informer ... there could be conclusions drawn ... that the particular individuals ... were acting in a capacity of being informers”