Motata was 4 times over the limit
2008-09-04 09:59
Johannesburg - Judge Nkola Motata had four times more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood when he crashed his Jaguar into the wall of a Sandton home last year.
Blood samples taken about three hours after the accident showed that Motata's alcohol blood levels were 0.2g/100ml. This was four times more than the legal blood alcohol limit of 0.05g/100ml.
The results were submitted to the Johannesburg Regional Court on Wednesday.
Motata, a judge in the Pretoria High Court, drove into the wall of Richard Baird's house at about 00:20 on January 7 2007. A doctor only took blood samples at 03:35 that morning.
Could have been higher
Motata's blood alcohol level could have been higher at the time of the accident and could have gone down by the time the samples were taken, the court heard.
Considering the passage of time, his blood alcohol level at the time of the crash may have been between 0.23g/100ml and 0.26g/100ml, Professor Michael Stewart, national director of forensic pathology in the Department of Health, testified in a sworn statement.
In the statement, Stewart said he saw the results of blood sample DD0377/2007, which he got from the Johannesburg forensic chemistry laboratory. It belonged to a 60-year-old man of normal build and a height of 1.6m.
Stewart, who supervised the country's three forensic chemistry laboratories, also said: "It is inconceivable that the person from whom the blood sample was taken, had a blood ethanol (alcohol) level of less than 0.2 g/100 ml at the time of the alleged transgression."
Laboratory accreditation
State prosecutor Advocate Zaais van Zyl, asked him if the Hillbrow laboratory, where the blood samples were analysed, was accredited.
Stewart said he was 100% sure of the quality of the data that came from the laboratory. It is apparently not accredited by the South African National Accreditation System (Sanas).
Motata's legal representative, Advocate Danie Dorfling, claimed that the defence was never informed that Stewart would give his opinion about the laboratory. An expert witness would later testify for the defence in this regard.
During cross-examination, Dorfling fired questions at Stewart regarding information about alcohol consumption and absorption.
The trial continues.