No SIM card link to advocate’s cell
ASIM card placed in a tracking device and attached to a Pietermaritzburg advocate’s car, did not report to the cell number of advocate Penny Hunt, the city’s high court heard yesterday.
This was according to an expert in electronic, computing and technical aspects of GPS tracking, Leonardo Nardi, who was called to testify by Hunt’s legal team. His cross-examination stood down until October, when the case resumes after being adjourned yesterday.
The Society of Advocates of KZN has closed its case. It wants Hunt struck off the roll of advocates for unethical conduct, which she vehemently denies.
The society alleges that she 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 city’s advocates’ chambers in 2011.
Chetty had been punched by Hunt’s husband, advocate Cameron Hunt, in June 2010 and knocked unconscious.
Moments before, Penny had “caused some whisky and water to fall” on Chetty’s head and there was abusive language by Chetty towards Penny.
Cameron was charged and an agreement was reached in 2011 between the State and the defence, which resulted in him being cautioned and discharged. He also paid Chetty R65 000 in compensation.
Early in the day, a computer forensic specialist, Sean Morrow, testified on behalf of Penny Hunt. He said Hunt’s former secretary, Allyson Bradbury, had intercepted e-mails and had more knowledge about e-mails than the average user. “I am not saying she is a super-genius,” he said.
Bradbury was the person who allegedly found out about the bugging. She has testified that she found a file on Hunt’s computer that led her to believe that Hunt was bugging the office of the Pietermaritzburg Bar administrator, Esme van der Watt. Bradbury opened it and heard a recording of “what sounded like” Van der Watt’s voice.
It has been alleged that Bradbury had hacked into her ex-husband’s e-mails while their divorce was pending. But she said she’d legitimately had access to his e-mail account while they were married as they ran a guest-house business together.
Yesterday, advocate Alan Boulle, from the society’s legal team, asked Morrow three times what the relevance was of his testimony in relation to the case, before getting an answer.
He also wanted to know why her use of her ex-husband’s e-mail was relevant.
Morrow replied: “It is still an interception.” He said she did not have his permission and that it was an abusive action.
It is alleged by Hunt that Bradbury had the “malicious intent” and computer skills to “plant” evidence on her computer to falsely implicate her in the bugging.