WC High Court told cellphone evidence against Jerome Booysen could have been manipulated
CAPE TOWN - A defence attorney today told the Western Cape High Court cellphone evidence against alleged underworld gang boss Jerome 'Donkie' Booysen could have been manipulated.
Booysen and 12 others face a slew of charges related to the murder of 'Steroid king' Brian Wainstein, who was shot dead in 2017.
Legal teams are arguing in a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the cellphone evidence can be used as evidence against the accused.
Defence attorney Amanda Nel, who represents Booysen on Tuesday, told the court cellphone evidence extracted from her client's phone could have been manipulated.
READ: Trial-within-a-trial in trial of Jerome 'Donkie' Booysen and others continues
Nel questioned a crime intelligence captain -- who can only be identified as 'Mr Y' -about his role in extracting 38 calls from Booysen's cellphone at the time Brian Wainstein was murdered in 2017.
Nel put it to Mr Y that the recordings could have been altered when they exchanged hands during the processing of the evidence.
"So in a nutshell, that memory stick is never sealed at any stage that you know of?"
Mister Y: "Not that I'm aware of."
Mr Y told the court he would not be able to say whether the content of the recordings were altered before being presented as evidence against the accused.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
3 days ago
- The South African
Court orders RAF to pay R1.4m to undocumented Malawian
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the Road Accident Fund's (RAF) application to rescind a R1.4 million payment awarded to an undocumented Malawian man injured in a car crash. IOL reported that, Charles Jeka Chipofya, a Malawian national, has lived in South Africa since 1994. He married a South African woman in 2008, and they have two children. Despite his long stay, he failed to secure South African citizenship due to what the court noted as widespread abuse of the system by some foreign nationals. Chipofya suffered serious injuries in a road accident in Plettenberg Bay in September 2016. He filed a claim with RAF, and in November 2022, both parties agreed to a proposed settlement of over R1.4 million. A court confirmed the order in January 2023. However, RAF later withdrew its consent, claiming it had discovered Chipofya's undocumented status only after the judgment. The RAF asked the court to rescind the order, claiming it was misled. RAF said Chipofya submitted a passport under the name 'Charles Chipeta,' raising concerns when compared to court documents identifying him as 'Charles Jeka Chipofya.' Upon investigation, RAF found that he held two passports with different names. When questioned, Chipofya claimed a data capture error caused the inconsistency. RAF rejected this explanation, calling it improbable. RAF's investigation showed that one passport had expired in 2012, and the other appeared to have been issued after the accident. Movement records did not show Chipofya legally exiting or re-entering the country. RAF argued this suggested he was either not in South Africa at the time of the accident or was staying in the country illegally. Despite these concerns, the court ruled against RAF. The judge found no evidence that the initial order was granted in error or that Chipofya acted fraudulently. The court upheld the R1.4 million award. RAF warned that allowing undocumented immigrants to claim damages would place an undue burden on the state. The court maintained that it lawfully granted the order based on the facts available at the time. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Court orders RAF to honour R1. 4 million payment to undocumented Malawian immigrant injured in car crash
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating the payment of over R1.4 million to a Malawian man who has been in the country illegally. Image: Pexels The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating a payment of over R1.4 million to an undocumented Malawian man. Charles Jeka Chipofya has been living in the country since 1994 and has been married to a South African woman since 2008. They have two children. Despite his long-term residence, his attempts to obtain citizenship through marriage were thwarted due to evident abuse of the system by some African nationals. The Road Accident Fund found itself at the centre of controversy after Chipofya was involved in a severe car accident in Plettenberg Bay in September 2016. He filed a claim with the RAF, culminating in a proposed settlement of over R1.4 million in November 2022. In January 2023, a draft order was presented to the court on mutual consent between the parties, and RAF was ordered to pay Chipofya over R1.4 million. However, two years later, RAF reneged and wanted the court to rescind the order claiming that when it was made, it was unaware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant. RAF said that when Chipofya submitted a copy of a passport, it referred to him as Charles Chipeta and not as Charles Jeka Chipofya, and this was suspicious. In response to this suspicion, RAF investigated to ascertain the circumstances surrounding his dual identity and it came to light that Chipofya owns two passports, one naming him as Charles Jeka Chipofya and the other as Charles Chipeta. RAF stated that when Chipofya was confronted about having two passports, he tried to attribute the discrepancy to a data capture error. However, in RAF's view, his explanation was unlikely, as it is improbable that such an error could occur. Subsequent to that, RAF said investigations revealed that one of the passports did not exist at the time of the accident. Additionally, the movement system record revealed that the visa on the other passport expired in December 2012. Moreover, there were no records showing that Chipofya left the country using the old passport or that he entered the country with a new passport after December 2012. In RAF's view, this could imply that Chipofya was either not present in the country on the date of the accident or was potentially in the country illegally. RAF argued that the order was erroneously granted and had the court been made aware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant, the court would not have granted the order. Furthermore, RAF contended that the Immigration Act prohibits illegal immigrants from being in the country and extending claims of damages to illegal immigrants will create an enormous burden on the State. In response, Chipofya's legal representative argued that RAF had prior knowledge of his nationality and legal status before reaching a settlement agreement. Moreover, it was argued that Chipofya never misrepresented his status in the country and the settlement agreement was not based on the assumed existence of his legal status in the country. Judge James Dumisani Lekhuleni who presided over the matter, sided with Chipofya, and noted RAF had reduced the claim amount specifically because Chipofya was an illegal immigrant at the time of the offer, a fact that had been openly discussed during negotiations. "This conclusion is fortified by the fact that RAF's legal representatives advised Chipofya's attorneys that his claim would be reduced because he was an illegal immigrant. This averment was not disputed by the RAF or RAF's counsel," he said. In addition, he said Chipofya's medical reports and some of his documents, showed that he didn't have a valid visa and despite this, RAF settled his claim and consented to have the draft order endorsed in court. Regarding the different names, the judge said Chipofya provided a plausible explanation regarding the names and when RAF made the offer, it was aware of the discrepancies. Judge Lekhuleni emphasised that RAF is legally bound under the RAF Act to provide compensation for losses arising from road accidents, asserting that the Act does not discriminate based on a claimant's immigration status. "In my opinion, the current legislative framework of the RAF Act does not support the fund's position to exclude illegal immigrants from the application of RAF. "Eligibility for the RAF fund is not contingent upon a person's legal status within this country. An individual's legal standing does not influence their eligibility for RAF benefits. Simply put, it is not the person's immigration status in the country that makes a person legible to the RAF benefits," he said. RAF's application was dismissed. [email protected] IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
John Hlophe challenges court ruling on JSC participation
MK Party Deputy President Dr John Hlophe says he will appeal against the Western Cape High Court ruling that barred him from serving in the Judicial Service Commission. Image: Independent Media Impeached Western Cape judge president and uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party caucus leader in Parliament, Dr John Hlophe, has vowed to appeal the Western Cape High Court ruling, which barred him from representing his party in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Reacting to the decision during the party's media briefing on Tuesday, Hlophe in isiZulu, said 'Ngeke sidlale amajaji la sizodlulisa isinqumo (We are going to appeal the decision).' On Monday, the court set aside a decision by the National Assembly (NA) made in July last year to endorse the recommendation of the MK Party to have him serve as one of its six parliamentarians. The party had nominated Hlophe to serve on the JSC, which empowers him to participate in the appointment of judges. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The JSC was due to conduct interviews for the vacant positions of judges, however, the DA, Freedom Under Law, and Corruption Watch filed an urgent interdict to prevent Hlophe from sitting in the interviews. The court granted an interdict. The matter was heard in February by a full bench of judges from outside the division, after the court previously granted an interdict in favour of the DA, Freedom Under Law, and Corruption Watch, preventing Hlophe from participating in the work of the commission pending this matter. The court said the NA had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of its powers to designate members to serve on the body that interviews candidates to become judges. It added that this seriously threatens the independence of the judiciary and his presence on the JSC would prejudice the commission's ability to do its work. 'Through the impeachment of Dr Hlophe, the National Assembly has effectively already determined that his continued involvement in judicial affairs would diminish public trust,' said the court. It said that by Hlophe trying to appeal this judgment in the first part of this case, he has shown disregard for the authority and integrity of the courts. For this reason, it made an order that a judge removed for gross misconduct may never serve on the JSC. In 2021, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT) found that Hlophe's conduct breached the provisions of Section 165 of the Constitution and his conduct threatened and interfered with the independence, impartiality of the Constitutional Court. Acting on the recommendations of the JCT, the JSC found Hlophe guilty of attempting to influence two justices of the Constitutional Court to violate their oaths of office to rule in favour of former Jacob Zuma in his arms deal case in 2008. The matter was then referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, which then recommended to the National Assembly to impeach Hlophe. This was eventually approved by Parliament through a vote last year. This meant that Hlophe was stripped of his lifetime title as a judge as well as other perks including lifetime salary. Cape Argus
