The driver of the Suzuki then called his father who also arrived on the scene and it appears he also had words with the second defendant. The driver of the Suzuki was also injured on his right side as a result of the collision. Eventually he collapsed and was rushed to hospital. Photographs were then taken by the father of the driver of the Suzuki. The driver of the Suzuki identified skid/brake marks in the photograph taken by his father and attributed them to the VW driven by the second defendant. The fact that the second defendant was speeding was not contained in his witness statement, nor did the statement contain any mention of the lights turning yellow, that he grabbed his brother just before the collision, that photographs were taken by his father after the collision, that he had words with the second defendant or even that he was injured in the collision and collapsed. In fact, his witness statement comprised some two and half pages. During cross-examination, the driver of the Suzuki pointed out where his vehicle was and where the VW driven by the second defendant was, both before and after the collision. On this aspect this witness and the second defendant do not differ. It also became apparent that the brake marks pointed out by the driver of the Suzuki did not correspond with where the accident took place, particularly in relation to the point of impact, as testified to by the drivers of both vehicles. The witness further testified during cross-examination that when he saw the VW for the first time, it was outside the intersection and whilst he was in the process of executing his turn, he noticed that it was speeding. He was specifically asked why, if he noticed that the VW was speeding, he did not wait and see what the VW would do. He responded that when he saw the VW speeding, he was in the process of turning and he stopped. He was accordingly stationary when the VW bumped into him. This was not part of his evidence in chief. At the end of his cross-examination, the witness conceded that his view could have been obscured by vehicles intending to turn to his left into Jan Jonker Road that were
The driver of the Suzuki then called his father who also arrived on the scene and it appears he also had words with the second defendant. The driver of the Suzuki was also injured on his right side as a result of the collision. Eventually he collapsed and was rushed to hospital. Photographs were then taken by the father of the driver of the Suzuki. The driver of the Suzuki identified skid/brake marks in the photograph taken by his father and attributed them to the VW driven by the second defendant. The fact that the second defendant was speeding was not contained in his witness statement, nor did the statement contain any mention of the lights turning yellow, that he grabbed his brother just before the collision, that photographs were taken by his father after the collision, that he had words with the second defendant or even that he was injured in the collision and collapsed. In fact, his witness statement comprised some two and half pages. During cross-examination, the driver of the Suzuki pointed out where his vehicle was and where the VW driven by the second defendant was, both before and after the collision. On this aspect this witness and the second defendant do not differ. It also became apparent that the brake marks pointed out by the driver of the Suzuki did not correspond with where the accident took place, particularly in relation to the point of impact, as testified to by the drivers of both vehicles. The witness further testified during cross-examination that when he saw the VW for the first time, it was outside the intersection and whilst he was in the process of executing his turn, he noticed that it was speeding. He was specifically asked why, if he noticed that the VW was speeding, he did not wait and see what the VW would do. He responded that when he saw the VW speeding, he was in the process of turning and he stopped. He was accordingly stationary when the VW bumped into him. This was not part of his evidence in chief. At the end of his cross-examination, the witness conceded that his view could have been obscured by vehicles intending to turn to his left into Jan Jonker Road that were