140915OPJudgment

CC113/2013-mb 3292 JUDGMENT
2014-09-11
style of writing and his own vocabulary. The witnesses could not have
been expected to know why he wrote in the manner that he did and why
he used certain words and in what sequence. Captain van Aardt was
the only one who could have explained that. He was not called to do so.
That omission therefore cannot be used against the witnesses.
I do not think that Mr Johnson and Ms Burger were dishonest.
They did not even know the accused or the deceased. So they had no
interest in the matter. They also did not derive any pleasure in giving
evidence. They stated that they were at first reluctant to come forward
10
to give evidence until after the bail application, because they thought it
was the right thing to do. They simply related what they thought they
heard. They were, however, genuinely mistaken in what they heard as
the chronology of events will show.
In view, it is absurd to conclude that the evidence of witnesses
must be rejected in its entirety merely because the witnesses failed to
describe the events in exactly the same way. In any event,
contradictions do not automatically lead to the rejection of the
witnesses’ evidence as not every error negatively affects his credibility.
Before determining the credibility of a witness who contradicted himself
20
or herself, a court has to evaluate all the facts, taken into account the
nature of the contradictions, their number, their importance and bearing
on the rest of the evidence (see S v Mkohle 1990 (1) SACR 95 (A)).
It is easy to see why the witnesses would be mistaken about the
events of that morning. The distance from which Burger and Johnson
heard the noises put them at a distinct disadvantage. Both of them and
iAfrica Transcriptions (Pty) Ltd / hvr