Fraud trial accused call four 'unwanted' advocates mediocre
October 18, 2009
By Wiseman Khuzwayo
The four advocates appointed to represent Gary Porritt and Sue Bennett in their fraud trial found themselves having to argue for their own dismissal or keep quiet.
They chose the latter, prompting Judge Geraldine Borchers to jokingly quip: "I have never seen such reluctant counsel."
Porritt and Bennett face charges including fraud, tax evasion, share price manipulation, racketeering, and contravention of exchange control regulations, the Income Tax Act and the Stock Exchange Act.
This follows the collapse of PSG Guaranteed Growth fund in which investors, mainly old-age pensioners, lost R150 million.
The reason why the four advocates were in such a quandary was that the two accused do not want to be represented by them, although three of them have 75 years' combined experience in criminal trials.
Porritt and Bennett have told the South Gauteng High Court they do not want a "mediocre" legal representation. Yet they have said they are destitute and have applied for assistance from Legal Aid South Africa (Lasa).
Lasa believes it does not qualify but has grudgingly, at the insistence of the court, agreed to provide them each with a senior junior advocate and a junior advocate.
However, the two accused are not satisfied. They believe because the prosecution has two senior advocates on its team they are entitled to advocates of equal experience, who are remunerated equally.
But legislation prevents Lasa from paying higher tariffs than those prescribed by law and, therefore, payment for legal bigwigs is out of the question.
The accused petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal to be allowed to appeal against Lasa's decision not to provide them with senior advocates, but the petition was turned down.
They have now appealed to the Constitutional Court on the basis Lasa's maximum fee would not attract legal practitioners with sufficient experience to defend them properly.
Lasa and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) are opposing the application.
On Monday, Porritt continued with the accused's argument.
He said they needed "equality of arms and the State has an obligation to provide us with level fields".
Borchers has decided to approach the Bar Council to appoint pro deo counsel for the two accused when the trial resumes in her court tomorrow.
Porritt and Bennett intend to lodge an application in terms of Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
This section relates to an irregularity and a recusal on the grounds of appearance of bias.
Although they have not told the court what the alleged irregularity is, Porritt did not have a kind word to say about lead prosecution advocate Etienne Coetzee, who is in private practice, when he spoke to Business Report.
He said the SA Revenue Service (Sars) was paying Coetzee's fees and Bennett believed the agency did not have the mandate to fund the trial.
"We believe he is on a R300 000 retainer per month, which Sars does not have authority to do.
"The NPA is the sole authority to conduct prosecutions.
"They must provide us with the equality of arms, otherwise it can never be a fair trial," said Porritt.
|
|
