svg High Court of South Africa Western Cape division Judges Chambers Keerom Street Cape Town 16 March 2020 Dear Judge resident ReParker J |, We write to you in the light of Le Grange J's leter to you of 10 March 2020 and Parker ‘Ts response of 13 Merch 2020, both of which are in the public domain 2. Following informal dscussions among ourselves, it had been our intention to send you 2 leer on the afernoon of Friday 13 March 2020. As a courtesy to Parker J, a deputation called on him shor after lunch on Friday to forewarn him ofthe step we intended taking, Although he did not sek to dissuade us from addressing you, he tol the deputation tha he intended respondirg to Le Grange J°s letter, that his response would be made public, ‘and that it might causeus to see matters ina differen light In the light ofthis developmen, We decided to hold back until we had read his public response, That response has onl served to exacethate ear concems, fr reasone which we at out below. 3. Its common knowledge tht, immediately after an alleged asault in his chambers in February 2019, Parker} asked Wille J to take down an affidavit, which Parker J there ane then swore before a cammissioner of oats, the purpose ofthe afdavit being o support criminal charge. Until recently, the orginal of that affidavit was retained by Wille J (the Wille affidavit.2 [Le Grange J has recounted in his eter of 10 March, hs venion of what Parker J tld im. ofthe alleged assault. The discussions between them, so Le range J tells us, took place ‘on several cccasions in the third and fourth terms Ist year. Le Grange Js account of what Parker J told him substantially accords withthe version ia the Wille affidavit. It also accords substantilly with what Parker J has told other collegues as mentioned below. {In your affidavit of 7 February 2020, in response to the complaints i against you by Goliath DIP, you deny that you assaulted Parker J (though he fs not named), and you give adescriplion ofthe events nhs chambers which is materially at ods with the one Parke 3 ‘ave under oath and subsequently recounted to several coleagues. In para 43 of your affidavit you say that Parker 3 was shown the part of your affidavit relating to him end agrees witht. Since Parker J did not subsequently refute what you sid in para 43, we Felt we had no choice but to conclude that he had given two materially inconsistent versions ofthe alleged assault the one directly underoath, the other indirectly so (in that he knew you would be ‘incorporating his concurrence in your affidavi), In his leterto Le Grange J, Parker J has ‘confirmed that he fully agrees with your account, from which we have to conclude that he aims tha the version be gave underoath i the Wille affidavit was false Regretably, Parker J has now chosen to give an even mors problematic version, as is ‘evident from the following in para 3 of his leter to Le Grangs J (emphasis sed by us): “Quite simply, having reflected on the narrative with regan tothe alleged assault, very soon thereafter, and without anyone having influenced me in any way whatsoever, | ‘realised that events may not have unfolded inthe way Lad niall perceived. This is ‘quite understandable, given my emotional state at the time. therefore eame tothe fem but inescapable conclusion, that a complaint of any nature inthis regard, wil be both ‘inappropriate and unnecessary.” For present purposes, the ertcal averment is his claim that was “very soon” afer the alleged assault (25 February 2019) hat he came tothe realisaton tht events may not have unfolded in the way he intially peresived. He does not plainly sate precisely wien he ‘came to this realisation, but, in context, “very soon” must mean within a day or two, not within weeks or months,9. This is important forthe fllowing reasons: (@) Parker J gave his account of the assault to Le Grange Jf the third and fourth terms of 2019, (©) He gave similar aocounts to Sher J and Henney Jin the third andor fourth terms. (©) He gave a substantially similar account to another collague in January this year, ‘And to yet another gave an account, owards the end of lsyear, which has le the sid colleague to conclude that Parker J was either not telling the tuth then ors not telling the ‘ruth now. These colleagues have not agreed tobe identified ere, and one of them has slso declined to subseribe o this letter, but We have no doubt tat bth of them will confirm the facts iFand when called upon by an appropriate authority do so. (4) In October 2019, some seven months ater the alleged asa, Goliath DIP met with ‘Wille and Parker Jin onder to obian confirmation of what ha allegedly occured. Wille J informs us that on that occasion he and Parker J both gave the DIP an account of the alleged assault substantially as recorded inthe Wille affidavit, Parker J at no stage ssid thatthe account was incorect or that he was unsut of its correctness. (©) On any reckoning, these various accounts were given long ater the expiry of what ‘ould be described as date “very soon” afer the alleged asst (8 Teas only on 17 February 2020, nearly a year afer making the Wille affidavit, that Parker J asked Will J to return it. Parker J hed come tothe zonelusion, shortly after 25 February 2019, that his affidavit wrongly implicated you in an assault, one would have ‘expected him to seck its return at that time and also to inform Wile J thatthe contents of| the affidavit were incorrect. This he has never done (0. Asto what Parker J old colleagues conceming the alleged asst, you will appreciate that We are not relying solely on Le Grange J's version of wha: passed between him and Parker J, buton a body of evidence which we have no reason b doubt. 41, During our depuation’s meeting with Parker J on 13 March 202, they told him on several ‘eeasions that the best way for him to allay our concems, and those of the public, 3s 1 his integrity would be to make the Wille affidavit availabe, even fhe wished to redact any Pat of it dealing withthe prelude tothe events in his chambers He declined to do $0. The ‘eason for the deputstion’s request that he make the affidavit available was that such Aiselosure would allow us and others to determine the extent © wich his version under13. 4 ‘oath on that occasion accorded with, or differed from, your version which he has more recently aired. n the light of Parker Js leter of Friday, disclosure of the affidavit is very relevant for an additional reason it would shed important ight on the plausibility of | his recent allegation that he now “perceives” events to have unfolded differently from what he stated in the affidavit ‘We do not know from personal knowledge what happened between you and Parker Jin his chambers. What we do know is tht Parker J has given materially inconsistent accounts ‘ofthe incident, We know. also, that his recent allegation tha “very soon” afer the alleged assault e came to realise that events may nat have unfolded inthe way he had peresived {is diametrically at ods with what he told other colleagues many months afer the incident. ‘This apparent and serious lack of integrity on Packer J's partis ireconclable with the ical fonction, the more so since we are often called upon to sit in judgment on the hhonesty and truthfulness of litigants and witnesses, This being the case, we are not willing to sit wth Parker J forthe time being. The processes (of the Judicial Service Commission (“ISC") inevitably take time, Although Parker J's Position must ultimately be determined through those processes, we consider that his ‘materially inconsistent statements are manifest and are publy known, fany of us were 'o sit with him, the court so constiuled would inevitably be tainted, and we would individually be placed in a false position, since we would pusportto be dispensing justice ‘as members of cout characterised by honesty and integrity. Interms of anile (a) ofthe Judicial Code of Conduct, judge must uphold the integrity ofthe judiciory and the authority ofthe courts. Article 5(1) sates that judge mus always, ‘and not ony in the discharge of official duties, act honourably and in a manner befiting ji office. Notes () an (i) to this article provide that «judge must behave in his oF her professional and private Tif ina manner that enhances public trust in, and a respect for, the judiciary and the judicial system; and that a judge mast avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his o hee activities. ‘Artile 16(3) of the Code stipulates that judge who reasonbly believes that a colleague has been acting in a manner which is unbecoming of judicial office must raise the mater with that colleague or wit the head ofthe court.5 17, it will be apparent that in our view Parker J has acted ina manner which is unbecoming of juical office, particulary in relation to the provisions of articles 4 and $ mentioned above. This fetter thus also serves the purpose of rising this with you in terms of article 168), 18, However and in the unusual circumstances ofthis ease, where both you and Goliath DIP ‘have an interest in the conflicting asserons made by Parker J antcle 16(3) i, we think, nap, and so we deem it appropriate to furnish a copy ofthis letter to the Chief Justice and ‘o te secretariat ofthe Judicial Service Commission in order that it maybe placed before ‘he Juticial Conduct Commitee 19, We have not sought to discuss this mater with all colleagues and will accordingly send a copy ofthis leterto ll permanent judges, both Zor purposes of transparency and o afford ‘them an opportunity, should they beso inclined, to express their own views one way of the other Yours sincerely Ba Meer H Gil. yt Rogers