JOHANNES LE ROUX VERSUS NORMAN SMITH PART 4

(This is a work of fiction and bears not relation to any real persons, places, or institutions)

JANUARY 15TH 2020 – THE DEFENCE CASE CONTINUED

(Swearing in of Defence Witness Miss Eunice Naidu)

Judge: Silence in court! I would urge jurors and members of the judiciary present to desist from incessant chatter when the court is in session. You have had ample opportunity to exercise your vocal chords during the recess. It is important for all present to listen to witnesses being sworn in, if only to form a judgement on their appetite for promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, a commitment rarely adhered to in any other walk of life. Mr Quartermain, I see that your next witness is now ready to testify. Please go ahead.”

PQ QC: “Thank you Me’Laud. Miss Naidu, please could I ask you to introduce yourself to the Court and advise them of your profession?

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “My name is Eunice Naidu, I am thirty years old, and am a resident of South Africa, currently visiting the UK for business purposes. I am an advisor to the Government of my country on the tourism industry.”

PQ QC: “Thank you. Please can you confirm that you were working at the Cape Resort Hotel in Cape Town and the Sea View Hotel in Port Elizabeth during the time of Mr & Mrs Smiths’ visit to South Africa in January 2016, and that you met the defendant at that time?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I was working at both hotels. At the Cape Resort Hotel, I was a senior receptionist and assistant manager. At the Sea View Hotel, I was a chamber maid. I met Mr Smith whilst working at each hotel.”

PQ QC: “Can you explain to the court why you moved from a managerial position in Cape Town to that of a room-maid in Port Elizabeth. That does not seem to have been a very promising career move.”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “Mr Smuts was employing me in both capacities at the same time. I had accompanied him to Port Elizabeth for a week to research the Sea View Hotel which he was then considering acquiring. The vendor had agreed that we both be allowed to work there for a short period in order to make a more informed decision as to whether the proposed acquisition would be a profitable venture.”

PQ QC: “Can you then explain why Mr Smuts told Mr Smith that he had been forced to find work in Port Elizabeth because the authorities had taken possession of the Cape Resort Hotel?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I cannot account for that with any certainty. However, my impression was that, at the time, Mr Smuts was extremely disenchanted with the Government in South Africa and its demands for him to pay taxes and other duties. At the time, it was becoming extremely difficult for a foreigner like Mr Smuts to own and run hotel real estate, a percentage of which had to be in South African ownership. He may have been subconsciously transferring his fears about foreclosure and his distaste for Government policy by spinning this yarn to Mr Smith. As you know, Mr Smuts left South Africa shortly afterwards to pursue his business interests elsewhere.”

PQ QC: “Were you aware of the ‘close’ friendship between Mr Smuts and your frequent guest at the Cape Resort Hotel, Mr Le Roux?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I was. The two made no secret of their friendship whenever Mr Le Roux was in town. They would invariably spend time in the hotel bar together, sometimes until the small hours.”

PQ QC: “Did you consider that their relationship was anything other than platonic?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No, your honour. I was under the impression that Mr Le Roux was a heterosexual.”

PQ QC: “What gave you this impression?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “It was not uncommon for him to invite young ladies to join him at the hotel. Furthermore, he started making inappropriate advances towards me.”

PQ QC: “Please can you explain the nature of these advances to the court.”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “It started off as mild harassment. Mr Le Roux would wink at me and make the odd lewd comment about a part of my body. Later on he made several attempts to touch me. By the time Mr and Mrs Smith were staying at the Hotel, Mr Le Roux had started to pester me to drink with him in the bar and to come back to his room with him. He made several attempts to kiss me and put his hand up my skirt.”

PQ QC: “Did you report this behaviour to Mr Smuts?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I did, but to little effect. I got the impression that Mr Smuts either did not or did not wish to believe me. In fact, he reprimanded me for being provocative towards Mr Le Roux.”

PQ QC: “So how did you deal with this situation?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I confronted Mr Le Roux directly and advised him that if he did not cease to harass me, I would have to report him to the police. This happened at the time Mr and Mrs Smith were guests at the hotel.”

PQ QC: “How did Mr Le Roux react to this?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He became rude and offensive towards me, which made me extremely upset. His attack on me at the time was verbal, not physical.”

PQ QC: “Was Mr Le Roux racially abusive towards you?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He was both racist and sexist. He wanted to belittle me.”

PQ QC: “And did this confrontation lead to Mr Le Roux to cease harassing you?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “It did, your honour. At least until I arrived in Port Elizabeth.”

PQ QC: “Did you ever see Mr le Roux being abusive towards other members of the hotel staff?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He was regularly abusive towards the hotel staff and, indeed, sometimes to the guests, especially when he had been drinking.”

PQ QC: “Did you ever see him being abusive towards the defendant?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “On one occasion, I saw the two of them in heated conversation, but I could not hear exactly what was being said. Mr Le Roux was making abusive and threatening gestures towards Mr Smith, but I observed no physical contact.”

PQ QC: “Did Mr Smith confide in you about this at any time?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He did not.”

PQ QC: “What was your impression of Mr Smith on the day you took him and his wife on the excursion to Cape Point?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “My relationship on that day was primarily with Mrs G, whom I seemed to hit it off with, and with whom I had arranged the trip. Mr Smith was rather quiet, and sat in the back of the car whilst Mrs G and I talked in the front. I did, however manage to have a couple of short conversations with her husband when I found him to be reserved, polite, and extremely interested in the socio-political situation in South Africa, a subject of great interest to myself.”

PQ QC: “Did Mr Smith at any time make any sexual advances towards you?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “Absolutely not. He was the very soul of discretion. A typical English gentleman.”

PQ QC: “Did Mr Smith ever make any allusion to you about working for MI6?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No. He did not.”

PQ QC: “Miss Naidu, please can you explain to the court what happened on the beach in Port Elizabeth between you, Mr Le Roux, and Mr Smith?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “On the day on question I had the afternoon off duty. I had decided to spend the time reviewing the Sea View Hotel accounts in my room. Just as I was settling down to work the telephone rang. It was Mr Smuts and he told me that he had Me Le Roux waiting to talk to me on the line. I told Mr Smuts that I did not want to talk to Mr Le Roux, but Mr Smuts insisted that I should in the interests of diplomacy and of my own career. Reluctantly I agreed. Mr Le Roux explained to me that he knew I was in Port Elizabeth and it so happened that he was also there at the time on business. He asked me if I would go for a walk with him, only it wasn’t really a question, it was more of a command. He inferred that my failing to do so might compromise my career I some way. He also started to accuse me of stirring up trouble against him, and colluding with Mr Smith in trying to blackmail him. I had no idea what he was talking about, but I was very scared. I decided that I had no choice but to go along with it, a decision which I was later to regret. Le Roux arranged to meet me outside the Sea View Hotel. Incidentally he was not a guest there. He must have been staying somewhere else. I can only assume that he had been in cahoots with Mr Smuts regarding the arrangement. Mr Le Roux explained to me that he had plans for the afternoon. He had hired a small boat and was going to take me along the cost in it to his hotel so that we could get to know each other better. I told him that I only had half an hour to spare as I was busy with the accounts. He seemed to find this most amusing and took my arm, leading me around a few blocks towards the sea front.  The neighbourhood we ended up in was not particularly pleasant or safe, but he reassured me that he would protect me and that he had a weapon in case we came across any trouble. It would be an understatement to say that he was threatening. I was completely petrified. Eventually, we arrived at the beach where I told him that I really had to return directly to the hotel. He then grabbed me and tried to kiss me on the mouth, right there in public. I tried to wriggle loose from his clutches, but I could not do so and he started rubbing up against me in a disgusting manner. He then grabbed me by the wrists and started leading me towards a boat that was moored offshore a few hundred yards away. I remember his words as he pulled me along the beach. “You are going to pay for this, you little bitch,” he said. I suddenly jumped to the alarming conclusion that he intended to murder me in the boat and cast my body into the sea. He could have equally intended to take me to his hotel and rape me first. I started to scream at him, but he just pulled harder. There was no one else on the beach except a group of youths playing football. They took absolutely no notice of me, as if it was normal to see a woman being violently abducted in broad daylight. I think they were frightened. Suddenly, I saw a white man running towards us shouting. I did not recognise who it was at first. Le Roux took out a gun from his jacket pocket and fired it towards the running man. Clearly the shot missed its target as the man kept on running. Trying to hold on to me and shoot the gun caused Le Roux to loosen his grip on my wrists so I tugged hard and we both fell over, apart. I hit my head on a rock as I fell, but was able to scramble up and run away as hard as I could. It was not necessary because Le Roux had started to run away from the approaching man. He had dropped his gun when he fell and was obviously now fleeing. As he passed me, I recognised that the chasing man was Mr Smith. He managed to catch up with Le Roux who had stumbled again and I saw him grapple my assailant to the ground where they wrestled for a while. I noticed Le Roux draw a knife from somewhere and shouted to Smith to be careful. At this point Le Roux broke free and sprinted to the waterline and into the moored motorboat. Mr Smith went to retrieve the gun that Le Roux had dropped. He picked it up and aimed at le Roux who was nearly in the boat by now and looking back anxiously. Mr Smith aimed the gun at him, but there was no shot. Le Roux managed to start the engine and motor off and away. As he did so, Mr Smith collapsed onto his knees and fell forward, unconscious. I thought he had been shot. I noticed that the youths had vanished, choosing to disappear rather than watch the spectacle. I raced over to where Mr Smith was lying and tried to revive him. Thankfully there did not appear any gunshot wound on his body. After a short while, Mr Smith regained consciousness. He had apparently fainted. We both decided to return to the hotel as quickly as we could. We were both feeling dazed and in shock.”

PQ QC: “Thank you, Miss Naidu. It must be distressing to go over the events of that afternoon again. Do you need a glass of water?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No thank you. I am fine.”

PQ QC: “When, or before, you returned to the hotel did you explain to Mr Smith how Mr Le Roux had abducted to you?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I did, you honour. I explained what happened.”

PQ QC: “And what was his reaction?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He seemed both surprised and angry. He could not understand why Mr Le Roux would do such a thing.”

PQ QC: “When you returned to the hotel, was Mr Smuts present?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He was, your honour. We told him what happened and he provided us with some brandy to calm our nerves, and also attended to the bruise on my forehead. Mrs G was not present at this time.”

PQ QC: “What was Mr Smuts’ reaction when you told him what had happened?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He was strangely impassive considering we were explaining to him about abduction and attempted murder. However, this was not unusual behaviour for him. I expect Mr Smuts had already consumed a considerable amount of brandy. I could see the signs. He opined that it would be better not to involve the police, a suggestion that we all concurred with.”

PQ QC: “Did you see Mr Smith after this event?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I met Mr Smith and Mrs G in the bar of the hotel later that evening and invited them to join me at a reception that was being held in the dining room by the Port Elizabeth Tourist Board, to thank Mr Smith for rescuing me. They left the reception at around 9pm and checked out of the hotel early the next morning. I have never seen them since that date until today, nor have I communicated with them in any way.”

PQ QC: “Did Mr Smuts also attend this reception?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He did not, you honour.”

PQ QC: “Did you not find that odd considering he was intending to invest in the local hotel industry?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “His absence was not inconsistent with Mr Smuts general modus operandi. He could be unreliable.”

PQ QC: “Have you had any further contact with Mr Le Roux since that afternoon?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No your honour, I have not.”

PQ QC: “And Mr Smuts?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No. I returned to the Cape View Hotel the following day, but Mr Smuts never returned. Shortly afterwards the hotel was acquired by the Government.”

PQ QC: “How do you account for Mr Le Roux’s behaviour that afternoon?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I can only assume that he is a sexist pig and that by repeatedly rejecting his advances, I had injured his pride. He may also have held unpleasant views about successful and independent black women. I cannot say for sure though as I hardly know the man.”

PQ QC: “Do you think that Mr Smuts colluded with Mr Le Roux in arranging your rendezvous?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “With hindsight, I can only consider that to be most likely, though at the time I did not dwell on this possibility.”

PQ QC: “Miss Naidu, do you think that the defendant attempted to murder Mr Le Roux?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No, your honour. He certainly did not attempt to murder Mr Le Roux on the beach that afternoon. On the contrary. He had the opportunity to do so but did not. With my limited knowledge of the man, I would not consider him capable of such an act.”

PQ QC: “Thank you, Miss Naidu. I have no more questions.”

Judge: Mr James, I take it that you wish to cross-examine the defence witness?”

BJ QC: “Yes, Me’Laud”

Judge: “Please go ahead.”

BJ QC: “Miss Naidu, your testimony is laced with inconsistencies. Do you really expect the jury to believe that you willingly agreed to meet up with Mr Le Roux in Port Elizabeth, having previously distanced yourself from him due to his persistent sexual harassment?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I have already explained that I was put under pressure to comply with his request by Mr Smuts.”

 BJ QC: “Did Mr Smuts force you to meet Mr Le Roux?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No, but he implied that there would be consequences for my career if I did not.”

 BJ QC: “Would you not agree that your accepting of Mr Le Roux’s invitation was as apparently incomprehensible as Mr Smith’s decision to charge at a man wielding a pistol and shooting at him?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I do not find either action incomprehensible. We were each acting for our own reasons.”

 BJ QC: “Did you think Mr Le Roux would apologise to you?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I thought the chances of that were low.”

 BJ QC: “But was that not the reason he used to lure you out with him? I put it to you that the reality of your meeting with Mr Le Roux was different from the fabricated version of events that you have presented. Would it not make more sense to the jury if you accepted Mr Le Roux’s invitation, knowing that this would provide an opportunity to set him up and justify Mr Smith attacking him?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I never communicated with Mr Smith before he appeared on the beach. I did not even know that he was in Port Elizabeth. I could not have colluded with him.”

 BJ QC: “It just seems rather a coincidence that he was on the same beach at the same time as you and Mr Le Roux. What are the chances of that?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I cannot say, Your Honour. It certainly was a remarkable coincidence, but I cannot account for it in any other way.”

 BJ QC: “Is it true that you were working for the South African Government at the same time as you were working for Mr Smuts?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I was not being paid, but I was informally providing consultancy services to the Department for Tourism.”

 BJ QC: “Was Mr Smuts aware of this?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I do not believe he was.”

 BJ QC: “Surely this ‘consultancy’ role caused a conflict of interest. You have already stated that Mr Smuts was struggling with the bureaucracy and red-tape being inflicted upon him by the Government for being a foreign owner of a hotel in South Africa. I put it to you that you were spying and reporting back to Government where your primary loyalty lay. After all, they subsequently took you on as an employee. Were you then, and are you now, perhaps intending to discredit Mr Smuts and, by implication, one of his few friends and allies in South Africa, Mr Le Roux? Members of the jury, it appears that the defence has called not one but two spies as witnesses!”

 PQ QC: “Objection, Me Laud. This is not evidence but speculation.”

 Judge: “Sustained. Mr James please discontinue this line of questioning. I appreciate that Miss Naidu’s links to the Government may have some implications, especially if the jury wishes to consider that two of the defence witnesses were apparently under Government instruction at the time of the crime we are judging. However, I agree that the relevance of this is unproven.”

 BJ QC: “Miss Naidu, did you ever encourage Mr Le Roux in his supposed sexual advances towards you?”

Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “No, your honour, I did not.”

 BJ QC: “And yet you encouraged him by flirting and drinking with him is the Cape Resort Hotel and accepting his invitation to go for a walk in Port Elizabeth.”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I did not encourage him. He was extremely persistent.”

 BJ QC: “Was it not, in fact, you that was pestering him, rather than the other way round?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “That is not true, your honour.”

 BJ QC: “Then how do you account for the condom that you gave to Mr Le Roux in Cape Town during the time that you were pestering him. Does not this gift not indicate your intentions?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I gave the condom to Mr Le Roux so that he was aware that I was not going to take any chances if he persisted with his advances. It was a joke. I wanted to humiliate him.”

 BJ QC: “The joke rather backfired, don’t you think? The condom is unused and you now look as if you are lying.”

 PQ QC: “Objection, Me Laud. The subject of the condom has not been raised in any evidence so far presented. It is of no relevance to the trial.”

 Judge: “And yet Miss Naidu has not denied that she gave it to Mr Le Roux. Objection overruled.”

 BJ QC: “Miss Naidu, why do you think Mr Le Roux let go of you and started to run when Mr Smith appeared. According to your account, Me Le Roux was armed and Mr Smith was not. Why would an armed man turn and run at the sight of an unarmed man running towards him? Mr Smith, after all, does not appear to be a particularly prepossessing specimen and could hardly have been perceived as a threat to Mr Le Roux, who has a much larger build.”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “He ran because he had lost his grip on me and dropped his gun. I was already out of his clutches. I think he panicked, realising his plan to abduct me had been terminally interrupted. He decided to try to escape. I think he is a coward at heart.”

 BJ QC: “Objection!”

 Judge: “Sustained. Miss Naidu, you were not asked to comment on your opinion of Mr Le Roux’s moral character. Jury, please ignore the last comment by the witness.”

 BJ QC: “Miss Naidu, why did you not run away from the scene after Mr Le Roux let go of you? Why did you remain and warn Mr Smith that Mr Le Roux was allegedly drawing a knife on him when they started wrestling, and why did you minister to Mr Smith, whom you hardly knew, after the crime? You could not have possibly have known then that he was staying in the same hotel that you were working in. Finally, if you had Government connections, why did you not call the police? Surely you would have received preferential treatment from them.”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I thought about running away as fast as I could, but when I recognised that Mr Le Roux’s assailant was Mr Smith, and that he was trying to save me, I decided to stay and see if I could help him to overcome Mr Le Roux in some way. After Mr Le Roux fled on the motorboat I no longer had any reason to run, so I felt it was my duty to help Mr Smith who was in a state of collapse. It was only when he had recovered that I learned that he was staring at the Sea View Hotel, so we decided to return there together. Mr Smuts advised us that it would be preferable not to get the police involved and I tended to agree with him. Neither Mr Smuts nor Mr Smith, wished to escalate the incident. Mr Smuts for business reasons, and Mr Smith because he wanted to return to the UK the next day. I do somewhat regret that decision now.”

 BJ QC: “The final explanation is somewhat ambiguous is it not?”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “It is ambiguous, your honour. To be honest, I did not want to go through a public investigation of an attempted rape and abduction. I had no appetite for that at the time.”

BJ QC: “And yet by failing to do so, you let Mr Le Roux escape all charges of his supposed criminal acts against you? That does not seem to be the action of a blameless victim.”

 Defence Witness Eunice Naidu: “I was also frightened that Mr Le Roux would inflict further unpleasantness and threats upon me if there was an investigation.”

 BJ QC: “No more questions Me’Laud.”

 Judge: “The court will now rise and return tomorrow morning for the final summing up by the prosecution and the defence, after which the jury will retire to agree its verdict. Good evening ladies and gentlemen.”

Notes form the Judicial Clerk

In typical fashion, Judge Posser has guided proceedings relentlessly forward so that we are now looking at completing the trial on day three. Another remarkable act of judicial corralling.  I have no doubt this will allow him some much deserved rest and recreation on the golf course for the remaining two days of the week. Judge Posser has a gift for the Scottish game and currently boasts a handicap of just 5.

It has to be said that, for the first time in this trial, Mr James QC delivered a strong performance in his cross-examination of the the defence witness, Miss Naidu, though this was simply by using a compelling and insinuating questioning technique, for which he is famed, rather than by producing any irrefutable evidence for the prosecution.

The fact is that this trial suffers from a lack of corroborative evidence in much the way that a string quartet lacks the depth of a full orchestra. There is an overriding lack of substance which has been partially compensated for by conjecture, innuendo, and opinion, none of which are foundation stones for justice. The fact is that the jury has to make up its mind whether it believes one version of events over another, simply by judging the character and integrity of the witnesses, an almost impossible task. Somebody must be dissembling as two different versions of an event are incompatible with a truth.

It is not my job to predict the outcome of any trial before the verdict has been announced but, on a point of law, I would suggest that there is insufficient evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that Mr Smith attempted to murder Mr Le Roux. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt, and they have struggled to do this convincingly. However, juries can be fickle and outcomes sometimes unexpected so I will not be putting any money on the verdict.

Despite some weakness and ambiguity in parts of her testimony, the defence was probably enhanced by the presence of Miss Naidu as a witness. For the most part, her version of events supported those given earlier by the defendant, a strong point as long as long as there was no corroboration between the two of them, which seems unlikely, but is possible.

Miss Naidu presented a striking figure in the witness stand, appearing composed and surefooted for the most part. There is no doubt that she is a beautiful and well educated woman, of a type that radiates respect. She was dressed in African style with a brightly coloured dress and matching headwear and sporting large golden earrings and an elaborate neck chain. It would not be at all beyond the realm of possibility for men such as Mr Smith and Mr Le Roux to be taken with her charms.

Judge Posser commented on her appearance to me during the luncheon recess in his rooms. “Darned striking woman, what?” he observed in his usual minimalistic manner. “Indeed,” I replied tactfully. I could tell that her charms were playing on his mind by the way he was re-arranging his sock suspenders, revealing the white marble texture of his hairless and in every way impeccable calves. I have observed that he has a habit of fiddling with his suspenders when he is contemplating female pulchritude.  Of course, it is all perfectly innocent and he would never let such considerations interfere with the implementation of justice, but as I have already alluded, he certainly does have an eye for the ladies, the old dog.

Mr Smith continued to show signs of physical discomfort, squirming throughout the day’s proceeding on his cushion. It may be that this squirming, or indeed his medical condition itself, are expressions of anxiety and, as such, may have caught the attention of some of the jurors. One could argue that only a guilty man would squirm in such a manner. On the other hand, it is hardly surprising for a man on trial for attempted murder to be a little restive.

I am sure that his choice of attire has not endeared himself to the jury, if this was indeed his intention. His tweed suit makes him look as if he is trying to present himself as a member of the gentry on a hunting party, which does not necessarily create the required aura of integrity that a modern jury of mixed heritage might appreciate. Whilst he seems honest enough, there is something so plain and uninteresting about him that it is hard to imagine that he could excite any particular empathy from the jury. His wife has provided a masterclass in impassiveness throughout the trial, a trait that is unlikely to endear her to the jury either.

Let us see what tomorrow brings. I do not envy those ladies and gentlemen of the jury as they approach decision time. On the other hand, it is quite possible that most of them couldn’t really care less whether Norman Smith is convicted of attempted murder or not.