AN APPLICATION to strike prominent Eastern Cape attorney Mike Randell from the roll of attorneys can go ahead after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) last week reversed a High Court decision to stay it.
Randell – whose successful civil litigation against the provincial and national education department has been a thorn in the government’s side – is facing criminal charges of theft and fraud.
For this reason, the Cape Law Society says Randell is not a fit and proper person to be an attorney and the public should be protected from him.
The society alleges he and two other former members of the governing body of Greenwood Primary School in Port Elizabeth had breached their fiduciary duties as trustees and SGB members in a scheme that scored them millions of rands at enormous cost to the school.
Randell established a trust for the school to purchase and own land and buildings adjacent to the school. The school’s money was used to purchase the valuable land.
Randell did the preparation of the trust deed and is alleged to have amended the clause that nominated the school as the sole beneficiary. Instead the trust allegedly included him and two other SGB members as beneficiaries as well.
Soon afterwards they sold the valuable property to developers for R3.5-million, of which the three “new” beneficiaries allegedly scored some R2.4-million.
The former principal of Greenwood Primary School, Patrick Shelver, in January pleaded guilty to pocketing R1.13-million. He was sentenced to ten years in jail, wholly suspended for five years.
Randell pleaded not guilty and his criminal trial is set to resume in mid-April.
In 2011, the Grahamstown High Court ruled Randell should have his day in criminal court before having to defend his honour against the Law Society.
Judge John Smith found that anything Randell might say in the civil application to strike him from the roll of attorneys could prejudice him in the criminal proceedings.
But the SCA said this was not correct.
It said a stay on civil proceedings could only be granted where the accused person was somehow compelled to make a statement. This directly impacted on the accused person’s right to silence.
The court found Randell was in no way compelled to testify or to disclose his criminal defence during the civil proceedings.
“ denies any wrongdoing and if he were to respond, he would probably file an exculpatory statement. Any claim to violation of right to silence appears to be illusory,” the SCA found.
Lawyer to face law society
Randell – whose successful civil litigation against the provincial and national education department has been a thorn in the government’s side – is facing criminal charges of theft and fraud.
For this reason, the Cape Law Society says Randell is not a fit and proper person to be an attorney and the public should be protected from him.
The society alleges he and two other former members of the governing body of Greenwood Primary School in Port Elizabeth had breached their fiduciary duties as trustees and SGB members in a scheme that scored them millions of rands at enormous cost to the school.
Randell established a trust for the school to purchase and own land and buildings adjacent to the school. The school’s money was used to purchase the valuable land.
Randell did the preparation of the trust deed and is alleged to have amended the clause that nominated the school as the sole beneficiary. Instead the trust allegedly included him and two other SGB members as beneficiaries as well.
Soon afterwards they sold the valuable property to developers for R3.5-million, of which the three “new” beneficiaries allegedly scored some R2.4-million.
The former principal of Greenwood Primary School, Patrick Shelver, in January pleaded guilty to pocketing R1.13-million. He was sentenced to ten years in jail, wholly suspended for five years.
Randell pleaded not guilty and his criminal trial is set to resume in mid-April.
In 2011, the Grahamstown High Court ruled Randell should have his day in criminal court before having to defend his honour against the Law Society.
Judge John Smith found that anything Randell might say in the civil application to strike him from the roll of attorneys could prejudice him in the criminal proceedings.
But the SCA said this was not correct.
It said a stay on civil proceedings could only be granted where the accused person was somehow compelled to make a statement. This directly impacted on the accused person’s right to silence.
The court found Randell was in no way compelled to testify or to disclose his criminal defence during the civil proceedings.
“ denies any wrongdoing and if he were to respond, he would probably file an exculpatory statement. Any claim to violation of right to silence appears to be illusory,” the SCA found.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos