Authenticity of Vicki Momberg's racist rant video takes centre stage

The state did not provide enough evidence to prove that the video recording‚ which showed Vicki Momberg hurling racial insults at a black policeman‚ was authentic and that it had not been tampered with.

This is one of the arguments put up by Momberg’s lawyer Kevin Lawlor at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday‚ as Momberg applies for leave to appeal against her conviction on four counts of crimen injuria and an effective two-year jail sentence.

Her conviction was based on a recording made by a policewoman who recorded Momberg using the k-word more than 40 times during an outburst against police officers‚ who went to assist her after she was a victim of a smash and grab attack in February 2016.

Lawlor told the court that Momberg’s previous lawyer‚ David Davidovitz‚ had placed on record during Momberg’s trial last year that the authenticity of the recording would have to be proved by the state.

Lawlor said the evidence provided by the policewoman who recorded the racist rant by Momberg was not enough to discharge the onus that the video was original.

Lawlor said the policewoman only testified that she transferred the recording from her cellphone to a disc and handed the disc to the police stores as evidence.

“Evidence should be led that the video was the undisputed original‚ that the instrument used at the time was functioning correctly.”

Lawlor said it was important that the video recording be played in court during the policewoman’s evidence to establish whether she was the maker of the video.

Lawlor disputed prosecutor Yusuf Baba’s reluctance to play the video again as‚ according to Baba‚ “there was no need to burden the (court) record“.

Lawlor said this was the wrong approach.

“The state had to burden the court record in order that she could confirm the video’s originality‚ creation etc‚” Lawlor said.

He said it was insufficient for the state to say “I understand you made the recording” to the policewoman.

“She should confirm she recorded it‚” he said.

Lawlor also took issue with the fact that the state did not adduce evidence to show that the recording was placed safely where it could not be manipulated.

Lawlor asked how the video could be obtained and spread on YouTube and on the internet if she had stored it safely.

He said the state was still obliged to get the viral YouTube video and compare it with the video which was presented as evidence. This would satisfy questions about the video’s authenticity and security from tampering.

“Another court may conclude that the paucity of evidence is of such a nature that it affects its admissibility‚” Lawlor said. - TimesLIVE