Application to dismiss Simon case rejected

By: *ELMA ROBBERTS at WALVIS

BAY AS expected, former world champion boxer Harry Simon's legal counsel yesterday morning applied for their client to be discharged after the State rested its case.

Magistrate Gert Retief, however, would have none of it.

Simon's legal representative, Slysken Makando, claimed that the

State could not bring forth sufficient evidence to prove that his

client was driving too fast or recklessly at the time of the

accident at Langstrand, which claimed the lives of three Belgian

tourists on the night of November 21 2002.

 

Prosecutor Job Kozonguizi said that, under the last opportunity

rule, the party who had the last chance to avoid the collision is

responsible if he failed to do so.

 

If Simon was a reasonable and careful driver, he said, the

accused would have been able to avoid the accident, but he drove at

high speed at night on a busy road and failed to keep a

lookout.

 

Magistrate Gert Retief also disagreed with the defence and said

that there is enough evidence for a prima facie case against

Simon.

 

Expert testimony then continued when Rudolph Opperman, a South

African engineer with considerable experience in traffic safety

research and accident reconstruction, took the stand for the

defence.

 

Opperman refuted the testimony of Wilna Badenhorst, the accident

reconstruction expert that testified for the prosecution on

Tuesday.

 

Badenhorst calculated the speed of the Mercedes at 165

kilometres per hour based on the damage to the two vehicles.

 

Opperman, however, testified that should uncertain input values,

like the weight of the cars, the possible distance the cars moved

after the collision or the angle of approach be changed, the

Mercedes could have been travelling at 129 kilometres per hour.

 

He was however certain that the Nissan must have been moving at

no less than 20 kilometres per hour based on the final resting

position.

 

Detective Sergeant Piet van Staden from the Walvis Bay Police

who took down the statement of Munien Melanie was the last to

testify.

 

He said that the questionable paragraph which states that

Simon's Mercedes was back in its rightful lane of travel at the

moment of impact, were the words of Melanie herself.

 

Melanie denied having said that.

 

He claimed that Melanie recalled this information after he

already started writing the following paragraph and that he

inserted the phrase at that specific place because it applies to

that particular paragraph.

 

Magistrate Retief seemed sceptical about Van Staden's testimony

since Melanie's prior statement described the Nissan at the

Langstrand turnoff and stated that a dark coloured vehicle came

from the direction of Walvis Bay and drove straight into the

waiting vehicle.

 

Van Staden is currently suspended on charges of alleged bribery

and obstruction of justice.

 

The case continues today.

 

Simon's legal representative, Slysken Makando, claimed that the

State could not bring forth sufficient evidence to prove that his

client was driving too fast or recklessly at the time of the

accident at Langstrand, which claimed the lives of three Belgian

tourists on the night of November 21 2002.Prosecutor Job Kozonguizi

said that, under the last opportunity rule, the party who had the

last chance to avoid the collision is responsible if he failed to

do so.If Simon was a reasonable and careful driver, he said, the

accused would have been able to avoid the accident, but he drove at

high speed at night on a busy road and failed to keep a

lookout.Magistrate Gert Retief also disagreed with the defence and

said that there is enough evidence for a prima facie case against

Simon.Expert testimony then continued when Rudolph Opperman, a

South African engineer with considerable experience in traffic

safety research and accident reconstruction, took the stand for the

defence.Opperman refuted the testimony of Wilna Badenhorst, the

accident reconstruction expert that testified for the prosecution

on Tuesday.Badenhorst calculated the speed of the Mercedes at 165

kilometres per hour based on the damage to the two

vehicles.Opperman, however, testified that should uncertain input

values, like the weight of the cars, the possible distance the cars

moved after the collision or the angle of approach be changed, the

Mercedes could have been travelling at 129 kilometres per hour.He

was however certain that the Nissan must have been moving at no

less than 20 kilometres per hour based on the final resting

position.Detective Sergeant Piet van Staden from the Walvis Bay

Police who took down the statement of Munien Melanie was the last

to testify.He said that the questionable paragraph which states

that Simon's Mercedes was back in its rightful lane of travel at

the moment of impact, were the words of Melanie herself.Melanie

denied having said that.He claimed that Melanie recalled this

information after he already started writing the following

paragraph and that he inserted the phrase at that specific place

because it applies to that particular paragraph.Magistrate Retief

seemed sceptical about Van Staden's testimony since Melanie's prior

statement described the Nissan at the Langstrand turnoff and stated

that a dark coloured vehicle came from the direction of Walvis Bay

and drove straight into the waiting vehicle.Van Staden is currently

suspended on charges of alleged bribery and obstruction of

justice.The case continues today.

---