You Were Not Truthful Under Oath’: State Prosecutor Grills Stuart Scharnick Over Multiple Addresses
JOHANNESBURG: Businessman Stuart Scharnick faced intense cross-examination as the State prosecutor grilled him over multiple residential addresses appearing in sworn statements and official documents during his bail application in the Randburg Magistrate’s Court.
The State’s questioning focused on whether addresses Scharnick had provided in different matters accurately reflected where he was actually residing at the relevant times.
The issue could be significant to the State’s case. Scharnick faces charges relating to alleged contraventions of the Firearms Control Act, including an allegation that he failed to notify the Central Firearms Registry after relocating to another residence. He has not been convicted of the charges.
The National Prosecuting Authority previously alleged that police went to Scharnick’s residential address in Douglasdale to inspect his firearms but could not locate him. Authorities allegedly subsequently established that he had moved to another residence without notifying the registry.
STATE PROSECUTOR PRESSES SCHARNICK ON ADDRESSES
During cross-examination, the State prosecutor took Scharnick through several addresses appearing in documents from different periods.
Scharnick told the court that his business activities required him to move extensively between provinces, including Gauteng, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.
“Yes, I move a lot,” he told the court while explaining his movements and business interests.
The prosecutor, however, pressed him on why addresses were being provided as residential addresses when questions remained about whether he was actually living at those properties at the relevant times.
Scharnick maintained that he had multiple residences and that the addresses he provided were legitimately connected to him.
“MISLEADING INFORMATION IN STATEMENTS UNDER OATH”
The cross-examination intensified when the State prosecutor directly challenged Scharnick’s explanation.
“I am arguing that you keep on providing misleading information in statements under oath,” the prosecutor put to him.
Scharnick rejected that characterisation.
He explained that one of the addresses was a property where he had previously resided and which he continued to frequent.
Scharnick told the court that using the property also meant somebody could be available to assist police, receive documentation or relay information if he was outside the province.
He further argued that he had provided two addresses and two cellphone numbers to ensure police could contact him.
“So I wasn’t misleading anyone,” Scharnick said as he defended his actions.
STATE CHALLENGES SCHARNICK OVER SWORN STATEMENT
The confrontation escalated when the State prosecutor turned to a sworn statement containing another residential address.
The prosecutor put it to Scharnick that he had stated under oath that he resided at the address despite allegedly knowing that he was living elsewhere.
Scharnick disputed the State’s interpretation and argued that the document being presented had subsequently been discarded and was not the affidavit ultimately used to open the case.
The prosecutor pushed back, arguing that the document remained a sworn statement regardless of whether it was subsequently used to open a criminal case.
The State then put it directly to Scharnick that he had not been truthful in the statement under oath.
Scharnick continued to reject the allegation, saying his explanation regarding the addresses had remained consistent.
POLICE SERGEANT’S AFFIDAVIT PUT TO SCHARNICK
The State prosecutor later confronted Scharnick with an affidavit from a police sergeant.
According to what was read into the court record, the sergeant denied telling Scharnick which address he should provide in his statement.
Scharnick responded that he had never claimed a police officer had supplied him with an address.
He said his evidence was that discussions had taken place about providing a location where someone would be available to interact with and assist police.
Scharnick also disputed whether the officer whose affidavit was presented was the officer who ultimately assisted him when the case was formally opened.
WHY THE ADDRESS BATTLE MATTERS
The prolonged cross-examination comes against the backdrop of the firearms-related charges Scharnick is facing.
The NPA alleges that police initially visited his Douglasdale address while conducting an inspection relating to his firearms.
According to the prosecution, officers could not locate him there and allegedly discovered that he had relocated without notifying the Central Firearms Registry of the change of address.
SABC reported last week that the State had specifically requested additional time to prepare for its cross-examination of Scharnick during his bail application.
The court must ultimately decide what weight to attach to Scharnick’s explanations and the State’s arguments as it considers his application for bail.
Scharnick remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
