MBOMBELA – On September 19, 2024, the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court dismissed an appeal by Ermelo attorney Loraine Randell against her conviction for corruption.

The court upheld her five-year sentence, originally handed down by the Middelburg Regional Court on November 29, 2017.

Randell’s professional background and legal practice

Randell is a practising attorney who was admitted to the profession on September 17, 2007. She established her own practice in January 2009, specialising in administrations, divorce matters and some labour law work.

Additionally, she handles conveyance matters and receives corresponding instructions from other attorneys.

Corrupt relationship with court clerk Salome Brits

In the initial trial, it was established that Randell had engaged in a corrupt relationship with Salome Brits, a former clerk at the Ermelo Magistrate’s Court.

The offences were committed between February 2013 and February 2014. It is unclear when Brits had started working at the Ermelo Magistrate’s Court.

Court documents revealed that Randell had provided substantial financial support to Brits, which included payments for her car, rent and school fees, as well as giving her a bank card to use during holidays, without restrictions.

Details of financial support and Section 65J orders

This financial support was linked to Brits facilitating the approval of numerous Section 65J emolument orders in favour of a financial services provider offering loans, debt consolidation and credit solutions. Section 65J orders involve court-approved salary deductions for debt recovery.

Randell argued that the financial support was merely a loan, and claimed that Brits’s fiancé had repaid the money.

However, the court found this explanation unlikely, particularly given Brits’s modest financial situation and her status under debt administration.

The court determined that as an attorney, Randell should have recognised that under administration, Brits would not be in a position to repay a loan of such magnitude.

Brits admitted she had kept the card in her handbag because she feared her fiancé would withdraw cash from it.

According to the presiding acting judge, this explanation was not only improbable but also paradoxical, seeing as he was described as financially irresponsible, yet was said to be the one who had repaid the supposed loan.

High court’s ruling on the appeal

The appeal court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, agreeing that the State had proven Randell’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

While Brits did not fully disclose some aspects of her testimony, the evidence presented by the State corroborated the existence of a corrupt relationship.

The court also addressed concerns about the reliability of Brits’s testimony, noting that she had testified under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which grants limited immunity to accomplices in exchange for truthful testimony.

However, the court found that Brits had not answered questions honestly and truthfully, and she was not granted immunity as a result.

The court determined that while her evidence had some elements of unreliability, it was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence to support the conviction.

In dismissing the appeal, the high court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s findings.

The court concluded that the trial court had appropriately applied cautionary rules in assessing Brits’s evidence and had considered the totality of the evidence.

Next legal steps and potential prosecution of Brits

After the high court dismissed Randell’s appeal, the clerk of the court was supposed to serve a notice on her to hand herself over within 48 hours.

According to the provincial National Prosecuting Authority’s spokesperson, Monica Nyuswa, it appears that the clerk struggled to get the notice served on Randell, since she apparently changed legal representatives.

She said once the new legal representatives knew of the failed appeal, documents were drafted to file a petition at the Office of the President of the Supreme Court for leave to appeal the decision of the Mpumalanga High Court.

The next legal step for Randell was to petition the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Randall handed herself over on November 21 and lodged an urgent application to be released on bail pending the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The application was successful, and she was released on bail by the high court.

Nyuswa noted that any accused can apply for bail at any stage of criminal proceedings.

“Salomé Brits can also be prosecuted, since indemnity in terms of Section 204 was not granted by the court,” Nyuswa stated.

According to her, though, Brits’s evidence during the trial cannot be used against her if she was to be prosecuted, in terms of Section 204 (4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

“There must be independent evidence proving each element of the crime.”

In conclusion, she said: “The only factor influencing the incarceration of Randell is the result of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and if successful, obviously the result of the appeal itself.”

Highvelder reached out to Randell for comment. While her attorney, Willem Cilliers, initially agreed to speak with the publication, he later indicated on Monday that no comment would be forthcoming.