Drama, tantrums and contempt of court

The extradition inquiry for Tucker in Cape Town rivalled the best court dramas in tension, tantrums and raised voices, ending in a charge of contempt of court against one counsel — later set aside — and a legal appeal protesting at the unfairness of it all.

Following the magistrate’s inquiry, Judge Mark Sher was asked to judge if the hearing got so out of hand that it had impacted on the human rights of Tucker.

He described the cross-examination of Tucker as follows: “At one point the prosecutor became so animated that he slammed his fist down on the table and shouted at the appellant without cause.”

The magistrate also held one of Tucker’s advocates in contempt of court and fined him R2,000 or four months in prison after he did not arrive for a hearing that he had told the magistrate he would not be able to attend.

The contempt finding was dismissed by the high court.

This was Sher’s summary and findings: “There is no doubt that Tucker was badly treated by both the prosecutor as well as by the magistrate, who was driven by impatience and intemperate haste to conclude the proceedings … without having due regard for [Tucker’s] procedural rights.

“Both [Tucker] and his legal representatives were entitled to be treated with the same dignity, courtesy and respect afforded to any person who appears in our courts no matter what they may have done or what they may be accused of and both the prosecutor and the magistrate failed in this respect.

“But it is also clear from the record that Tucker was not intimidated by the prosecutor and gave him as good as he got.”

Sher said that, despite the above, he could not find that the proceedings were unjust.