Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

GEORGE BIZOS: My learned ...[inaudible] read half a paragraph, stop in the middle of a sentence and then proceed to another paragraph.  I have already indicated that it cannot be regarded as credible witness but support for their evidence on this issue was sought in the evidence of Mr Von Eggerdy who described the crowd as being on full charge on his interpretation - they were on the attack.  That's what the judgement says Mr Chairman.  As to whether the learned Judge correctly interpreted the common cause evidence Mr Von Eggerdy or not, I think can be left to us and our learned friends to argue about.

MR DORFLING: I quite agree that...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You'll have the liberty to deal with all this in your address and make your submissions but to take bits and pieces and put it to this witness and ask him whether he disagrees with this or that can't take the matter much further.  This is the Judge's view of the evidence.  He says he disagrees with some of the conclusions the judge has come to and I've no doubt that you'll weld all this in your argument.

MR DORFLING: As the Committee pleases Mr Chairman.  May I then just to conclude this point ask the witness to respond whether he agrees with the fact that it was found that there was no prima facie evidence to support the view that the crowd was surging forward in an attack mode on the ANC guards, do you agree or disagree with such a finding?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I disagree.

MR DORFLING: Lastly, it was found by Mr Justice Nugent that as there was, objectively speaking, in his view on the prima facie evidence no attack on the guards he had to consider whether the ANC guards might not possibly subjectively have foreseen that there was an attack.  In other words, whether in their minds, although there was on the facts not an attack, whether they perhaps might have thought there was an attack.  He considered that and he rejected the ANC's version that it could have been perceived as an attack.  What is your response to that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I was there and I saw attack.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, if I may just for purposes of the Committee's reference, the last statement relates to the findings at page 139 - 145 of the said judgement.  The previous statement relates to the findings at page 137 and 138.  The last statement yes, as to the so called question of futitive self defence, if I may call it that.  At pages 139 -145.   I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR DORFLING: Prior to the lunch adjournment I was dealing with the access to the building and I actually went back to the Attorney General's letters and I forgot to finish that point.  May I just conclude that point with your permission?
	Mr Kruser, pertaining to the access at the main entrance to Shell House, you've already described the outside perimeter of the building at ground level at the entrance to be glass doors and glass windows, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's right, doors with glass panels.

MR DORFLING: We know that they were not bullet proof glass but was it armoured glass or strengthen glass?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I am not sure but I know they were not bullet proof they were broken before.

MR DORFLING: Once one has gained access through those glass doors or glass windows is it indeed correct that after that there's a screening process and a desk where personnel sits and a person goes through or had to go through at that time an x-ray machine or a similar device which would detect any metal objects in a persons possession?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Once you go through the front glass doors you're in the - you're in Shell House itself, in the foyer of Shell House.  From there, there would be an access control point yes, for people who have permission to visit and things like that.

MR DORFLING: Once you've gone past that point there's yet a further obstacle in ones way, there's revolving gates that allows one access to the lifts, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Once you get to the front doors the revolving gates are at the other point which - there's only two, you have the doors which you come into at the front door, from there you have the revolving gates - that's the two points.

MR DORFLING: The revolving gates, how many people does it allow access simultaneously at one given point?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Under normal circumstances for visitors one but I'm sure you can go through many if you want to break it down.

MR DORFLING: Are they steel structures or metal structures?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: They are fibreglass structures with rivets into it, you can see how many are broken at Shell House at the moment.  They break just through normal wear and tear, they are not very strong.

MR DORFLING: Once you've gone through the revolving doors what access do you have to the upper floors of the building?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: You have lifts and staircases to the top.  Eight lifts and I think there are three staircases, I'm not sure.  There's also a staircase in the building from the foyer up into the building.

MR DORFLING: So if we were to postulate a crowd of for example a thousand people entering Shell House they will have to break down the front windows and glass doors and then have to break down the revolving gates and then have to either run up the flights of stairs or go up with the escalators to the floors where the leadership of the ANC would be on that day, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't understand the suggestion, are you suggesting that we should sit and watch them breaking down the doors?  I don't understand the suggestion at all.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] suggesting that, he's just suggesting that if there were a crowd of people that had entered into the building these are all the obstacles that they would have to overcome - they would have to take the lift after they have gone through the revolving door or take the escalator to go up - that's what is being put to you.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's how they would get to the top or via the stairs.

MR DORFLING: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DORFLING

MR VAN WYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, only a few questions I've got here.
	Mr Kruser, I had a look at your application and I want to ascertain from you whether this application of yours is conditional or is it an unconditional Application for Amnesty?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think I explained earlier that in process of consultation we were advised by our lawyers how a self defence case worked and there were probabilities that the court both civil and criminal and even the inquest might find that our recollection of the events would not - may not be the true reflection of what happened on that day.  We were then advised that it would be much better, may probably wise to say that we probably exceeded, it was some sort of safeguard that if my recollection was not correct and I don't think it was conditional, that we would be able to continue with this process which is provision is made for in the statute.

MR VAN WYK: Why I'm asking this is that if I look at page 2 of the bundle of applications, your application reads "I apply for Amnesty if it is found that I exceeded the bounds of self defence."  Now I'm asking you, do you concede that you exceeded the bounds of self defence or do you still deny that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think I said yesterday I accept the ballistic evidence, it's very clear from the ballistic evidence and more probably that we probably shot longer than we had to shoot.  Which - can I just finish - which was explained to me that that constitutes exceeding the bounds of self defence.

MR VAN WYK: I therefore repeat my question - do you accede -do you concede that you exceeded the bounds of self defence?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Based on the ballistic evidence, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Do you then concede that your actions were not justified, Mr Kruser?