Application to dismiss Simon case rejected

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.