Judge in Krejir case slated by lawyer
Judge Colin Lamont’s ability to weigh evidence and his conduct in court came under fire recently.
|||Johannesburg - Judge Collin Lamont’s ability to weigh evidence and his conduct in court came under fire on Monday as Radovan Krejcir’s new lawyer put an academic spin on the Czech fugitive’s leave to appeal.
Krejcir is appealing against his conviction and 35-year sentence. His new lawyer, former Wits law professor, Dr James Grant, argued that Judge Lamont had ruled on his client’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on mere probabilities.
Krejcir, Sandton businessman Desai Luphondo, taxi business operator Siboniso Miya, and organised crime unit warrant officers Samuel Maruping, Jeff Nthoroane and Lefu Mofokeng began their application for leave to appeal their convictions and sentencing on Monday in the Johannesburg High Court.
The six men were convicted on a string of charges, including kidnapping, attempted murder and drug dealing after abducting and torturing Bhekithemba Lukhele. His brother, Bhekisizwe “Doctor” Nkosi, had stolen and fled with a large haul of crystal meth from Krejcir.
Krejcir and Luphondo were sentenced to effective 35-year prison sentences, the others each received an effective 15 years behind bars.
On Monday, Grant argued that Judge Lamont basing his judgment on Lukhele being a reliable and honest witness, despite refusing to accept certain aspects of his testimony, was incompatible.
Relying on the probabilities of what happened was inadequate for a conviction, he argued, adding that the judge had failed to accurately weigh the evidence and testimony. Grant also insisted the State never properly identified the drug set to be sold - suspected to be crystal meth - and failed to prove that Krejcir was even aware of what substance he was meant to be dealing in.
Grant said Krejcir had thus been charged with “attempting to deal in an unknown substance”, which is not punishable in South African law.
He also insisted that Krejcir pouring boiling water on Lukhele to compel him to reveal his brother’s whereabouts did not constitute attempted murder, as there was no intent to kill. The judge’s conduct during sentencing was also criticised, as Krejcir had not been granted access to his then-legal team and was forced to represent himself under strict time limits, it was argued.
The Star