THE DEFENCE

Mr P’s defence team came out guns blazing in court this week – their target the arresting officer and private investigator Brad Nathanson, who had helped police arrest Mr P in his Assagay home in January.

Advocate Martin Krog argued that the way Nathanson had entered the accused’s home was “illegal and unlawful”.

He said that Nathanson was just a civilian and should not have intervened in a police matter. Nathanson was present at the accused’s Assagay home on the day of his arrest.

Under cross-examination, Warrant Officer Rajan Govender declined to answer questions about what had transpired at the scene of Mr P’s arrest. He said this dealt with the merits of the State’s case but said correct procedures had been followed.

However, a persistent Krog told the court: “I have never seen an investigating officer who did not want to answer the defence questions. I am challenging the quality of the State’s case and I expect answers.”

Krog questioned Govender on the day of Lee’s kidnapping and asked what evidence the State had to prove that Lee was kidnapped at gunpoint by Mr P.

Govender said the case docket contained statements from witnesses.

“Are there eyewitnesses and is there CCTV footage of Siam Lee being kidnapped at gunpoint?” Krog asked.

Govender said a case docket did not contain eyewitnesses to the actual kidnapping but said CCTV footage had placed Mr P’s vehicle outside the alleged brothel on Margaret Maytom Avenue, Durban North where Lee was abducted.

Govender also told the court that Mr P had been identified as the suspected kidnapper at an identification parade.

Krog argued that ID parade evidence was “severely compromised” because Nathanson had published a photo of the accused on his Facebook page, which 86 000 people had access to.

The defence’s cross-examination was cut short when the investigating officer had to rush off to attend to another urgent matter.