The accused had refused to give a sample because of his rights constitutional rights to privacy. Mr Fourie had said that Mr Singh would be charged with defeating or obstructing the course of justice if he continues to refuse giving a blood sample. .
Mr Singh thereafter voluntarily allowed a sample of blood to be taken. During Praveen's testimony, he said that the traffic officer was extremely rude, racially insulted him and threatened to assault him. Mr Fourie had said that Mr Singh resisted giving a blood sample and that he swore at the medic and tried to hit him. Mr Fourie had also put forward that the medic had to hold Praveen Singh down in order to get the blood. This is the hearsay evidence. The medic is unable to testify as he had immigrated to Canada. Officer Thinus Fourie while being examined in court couldn't give information on what had happened between the period of Mr Fourie telling Mr Singh to cooperate and give a sample of blood and Mr Singh actually giving a sample of blood. He had blamed this on a memory lapse but had thereafter suddenly remembered what the medic had told him. .
Mr Fourie was unable to remember certain things but he remembered what the medic had told him. Mr Fourie had admitted this to the court and had also said that he had had a long shift that day. There is a difference between defeating and obstructing the course of justice. Defeating is a more serious version of the offence and it results in justice not being done while obstructing the course of justice means that justice was delayed. .
The magistrate had used his discretion and allowed hearsay evidence into his court. .
Since Praveen had not kept to his argument and had given a sample of blood to the officer after he was informed as to what will happen if he does not oblige, the judge had found that the accused is not a credible witness and the judge had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of obstructing the course of justice.