Cape Town - The vast majority of advocates from the Pietermaritzburg Bar felt that the punching of a colleague by another at a function was totally inappropriate and were unhappy about it, the Pietermaritzburg High Court heard on Wednesday.
Advocate Adrian Rall SC – who had been the chairman of the Pietermaritzburg Bar from November 2010 to August 2012 – added that he shared the same sentiments.
He was testifying in a case in which the Society of Advocates of KZN was applying to have advocate Penny Hunt removed from the roll of advocates for unethical conduct.
It is claimed she was instrumental in the 2010 theft of CCTV security equipment at the Pietermaritzburg advocates’ chambers; had a tracking device fitted to advocate Mergen Chetty’s car, allegedly in an attempt to “get dirt” on him; and arranged for a bug to be planted in the ceiling at the chambers in 2011.
Hunt is denying all the allegations, claiming she is a victim of a vendetta against her and her husband, Cameron Hunt, by the city’s Bar committee, in particular Rall.
On Wednesday, the punching incident, in which Chetty was punched by Cameron in June 2010 and knocked unconscious, was brought up in court.
In relation to that, an agreement was reached in 2011 between the State and defence, which resulted in Cameron’s being cautioned and discharged.
He paid Chetty R65 000 in compensation.
Rall said the incident had had a profound effect on the local Bar and had to be seen in conjunction with certain other incidents involving Penny.
There was a feeling of outrage among Bar members and Cameron had not apologised.
Under cross-examination by Hunt’s advocate, Peter Hodes SC, Rall confirmed that he thought the assault matter would be better dealt with in the high court.
Hodes said he had never heard of a single count of assault being heard in a high court.
Referring to the assault agreement, Hodes said it was admitted there was a lot of abusive language by Chetty towards Penny before he was punched by her husband.
That was because Penny had “caused some whisky and water to fall” on Chetty’s head.
Rall agreed about what was said in court, but said it was not necessarily 100% of what had happened.
Hodes said Penny had complained to the chairman of the Pietermaritzburg Bar – who was not Rall at the time – about being sworn at by Chetty.
The chairman, without an investigation, responded seven minutes later, refusing to entertain “this nonsense from you”.
Rall said it was common cause that Chetty took offence and swore: “At most he was perhaps overreacting by swearing at her.”
Rall added he did not suspect Chetty would have attacked her, from what he had known of Chetty, and it was difficult for him to express an opinion on what the chairman should have done.
Rall denied he was on a “witch hunt” or “crusade” against Penny.
He admitted that after finding out about Penny bugging the offices, he wrote to the bar council to bring an application for interim relief to suspend Penny, because the act involved dishonesty.
He denied a suggestion by Hodes that “it shows your great enthusiasm to nail” Penny.
The case continues.
Cape Times