The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court has dismissed an application by the defence to have crime scene video footage brought before court in the murder trial of the suspect in the shooting death of Warrick “DJ Warras” Stock.
The matter is being heard before Magistrate Annalise Tlhapi, who handed down her ruling on the defence’s request during bail proceedings on Thursday.
No basis to grant application
In her ruling, Tlhapi said the court had carefully considered submissions from both the state and the defence. It found no basis to grant the application.
“The court heard both arguments. And the question before this court is whether it is necessary to hand over the footage that has already been handed over to forensics,” Tlhapi said.
She noted that the court had evaluated the available evidence, including the defence’s version. And it found that certain aspects of the accused’s alibi had not been tested.
“The alibi defence of [accused Victor] Majola was not tested that he was in Soweto,” she said.
Tlhapi explained that the court was required to weigh the evidence presented by both sides and relied on established legal principles.
“The court had to weigh the evidence of defence and state and followed State v Pienaar. It was clear that the viva voce evidence carries more weight,” she said.
Bail application
Turning to the bail proceedings, Tlhapi emphasised that a bail application should not be confused with a trial.
“A bail application is not a trial. The test for bail in Schedule 6 matters is that the applicant has to prove before court that there are exceptional circumstances,” she said.
She added that the issue of the video footage did not alter the legal burden placed on the accused.
“The issue of the video footage does not shift the onus placed on the applicant. The applicant has to prove two things on a balance of probabilities. Firstly, exceptional circumstances, and secondly, that those circumstances permit his release on bail in the interest of justice,” Tlhapi said.
She further stated that the court was not prepared to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
“I am not prepared to tamper with the evidence and the investigations. The video footage is available; it is sent to the lab for analysis. At this stage it is not ready as they are still busy with analysis,” she said.
Video evidence accepted in court
She noted that both the state and the defence had already tendered evidence regarding the footage. And the court was satisfied with what had been placed before it.
“Whatever is visible in that footage is already what the investigating officer told this court. What the investigating officer said about the footage is accepted by the court,” she said.
She concluded by stating that once forensic analysis is complete, a formal report will be prepared.
“After the investigation is completed, the forensics will prepare a statement on the outcome of that analysis. Therefore, this court will not summon the video footage to be brought to court for evidence. The application is dismissed,” she ruled.
