Government lawyer wins some and loses some in appeal case

A SENIOR Government lawyer received both a respite and a further blow to his own legal fortunes in the High Court this week, when the court set aside his conviction for an alcohol-related driving offence.

However, it turned down his appeal against being found guilty of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice. Tuesday’s judgement in a case in which acting Government Attorney Ray Goba was the accused, means that Goba’s appeal succeeded only partly in his appeal against a Windhoek Regional Court judgement dating back almost three years.Because of Goba’s only partial success with his appeal, a conviction that would potentially be a particularly sensitive matter for any lawyer – guilty of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice – remains on his record.Goba, a former Deputy Prosecutor General of Namibia and former Acting Director of Public Prosecutions of Zimbabwe, said yesterday that he was naturally disappointed with the judgement since he had expected a more favourable result from the court.However, he added, he was duty-bound to respect the court’s decision, which he did.But he said he would first have to study the judgement with his legal representatives before he could decide on whether to take the matter further on appeal to the Supreme Court.The appeal judgement was written by Judge Gerhard Maritz, with Judge President Peter Shivute concurring with the assessment of the evidence.That trial was the result of events that occurred in Windhoek during the early morning hours of February 20 2000, when traffic officers ordered Goba to pull his vehicle off the road, and, despite protestations from the then Deputy PG, took him to a hospital to determine his blood alcohol level.Despite his protestations of innocence, Goba ended up being convicted of having driven a vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level, having failed to obey a traffic sign and attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice.In the appeal judgement, Judge Maritz made short shrift of the conviction on the first charge, setting it aside after pointing out that there had been contradictory evidence before the Regional Court about one of the most crucial aspects in any alleged drunken driving case – the blood sample.With witnesses having given the trial court conflicting explanations about who had for instance sealed the sample once blood had been drawn from Goba’s arm, Judge Maritz was not satisfied that it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood had in fact been a specimen from Goba.As for the evidence that Goba had been reluctant to have his blood drawn, had tried to flee, had threatened to sue traffic officers who were involved in the matter – telling one that he would sue him until the officer had sold “his last donkey” – Judge Maritz found that these were threats that “do not involve the enforcement of rights by due process, but carry with them the blunt blows of intimidation aimed at obtaining either a stay or termination of the investigation” Judge Maritz found that this behaviour had been part of a design to delay the period within which Goba’s blood would be taken beyond the prescribed two hours.In so doing, Goba had attempted to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, the court found.Tuesday’s judgement in a case in which acting Government Attorney Ray Goba was the accused, means that Goba’s appeal succeeded only partly in his appeal against a Windhoek Regional Court judgement dating back almost three years.Because of Goba’s only partial success with his appeal, a conviction that would potentially be a particularly sensitive matter for any lawyer – guilty of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice – remains on his record.Goba, a former Deputy Prosecutor General of Namibia and former Acting Director of Public Prosecutions of Zimbabwe, said yesterday that he was naturally disappointed with the judgement since he had expected a more favourable result from the court.However, he added, he was duty-bound to respect the court’s decision, which he did.But he said he would first have to study the judgement with his legal representatives before he could decide on whether to take the matter further on appeal to the Supreme Court.The appeal judgement was written by Judge Gerhard Maritz, with Judge President Peter Shivute concurring with the assessment of the evidence.That trial was the result of events that occurred in Windhoek during the early morning hours of February 20 2000, when traffic officers ordered Goba to pull his vehicle off the road, and, despite protestations from the then Deputy PG, took him to a hospital to determine his blood alcohol level.Despite his protestations of innocence, Goba ended up being convicted of having driven a vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level, having failed to obey a traffic sign and attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice.In the appeal judgement, Judge Maritz made short shrift of the conviction on the first charge, setting it aside after pointing out that there had been contradictory evidence before the Regional Court about one of the most crucial aspects in any alleged drunken driving case – the blood sample.With witnesses having given the trial court conflicting explanations about who had for instance sealed the sample once blood had been drawn from Goba’s arm, Judge Maritz was not satisfied that it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood had in fact been a specimen from Goba.As for the evidence that Goba had been reluctant to have his blood drawn, had tried to flee, had threatened to sue traffic officers who were involved in the matter – telling one that he would sue him until the officer had sold “his last donkey” – Judge Maritz found that these were threats that “do not involve the enforcement of rights by due process, but carry with them the blunt blows of intimidation aimed at obtaining either a stay or termination of the investigation” Judge Maritz found that this behaviour had been part of a design to delay the period within which Goba’s blood would be taken beyond the prescribed two hours.In so doing, Goba had attempted to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, the court found.