INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
File photo: Retired magistrate Steve Mundhree was convicted in 2011 of sexually assaulting the court clerk and was sentenced to five years in jail, wholly suspended for five years.
Durban – A woman who says she suffered “physical and emotional trauma” because of a “sex pest” former magistrate who fondled her in his chambers is suing him and the minister of justice.
Retired magistrate Steve Mundhree was convicted in 2011 of sexually assaulting the court clerk and was sentenced to five years in jail, wholly suspended for five years.
At the time of the incident in November 2010, Mundhree, 67, who was a senior magistrate in Chatsworth and Nongoma, had been brought back from retirement and was presiding over a backlog of court cases in the Durban Regional Court. The 24-year-old clerk had been assigned to work as a stenographer in his court.
In papers filed in the Durban Magistrate’s Court, the woman, who cannot be named because she is a victim of sexual assault, said she had to undergo psychiatric treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and would continue to do so.
She is suing for R100 000 in damages of which R20 000 is for current and future medical expenses.
The woman is also suing the justice minister as she claims that, as Mundhree’s employer at the time of the incident, he is vicariously liable for the incident. She argues that, alternatively, the justice minister is liable for damages under his constitutional duty as he had failed to protect the woman from being sexually assaulted.
In his plea in the civil case, Mundhree – who is working as an advocate in Durban – remains adamant that the incidents did not occur.
In the criminal trial he testified that the woman had made advances to him, hugged and kissed him but later apologised for her behaviour.
The justice minister also denies that he is vicariously liable for Mundhree’s actions.
“The second defendant (the minister) pleads that the first defendant (Mundhree), as a magistrate, is independent and the minister cannot be held liable for his acts or omissions.”
In the criminal case, magistrate Jan Greyvenstein found that Mundhree had been a “sexual opportunist” and had lured the clerk to his office under the pretext of giving her chocolates for Eid.
There, he kissed her face, neck, cheek and mouth and then, while he put his tongue in her mouth, he fondled her right breast.
He told her he loved her and could not stop staring at her in court.
She reported what had happened to the prosecutor and legal aid board attorney, who testified during the trial.
Mundhree took his case on appeal, but last year judges Kevin Swain and Gregory Kruger dismissed his case.
The appeal judges said the woman’s testimony was the truth and rejected Mundhree’s version that she had made advances to him.
The court also said that Mundhree should have known that the woman did not consent to his actions.
“In the context of all of the evidence as well as the wide disparity in their ages, the appellant (Mundhree) could never have subjectively believed the complainant was consenting to his sudden, unexpected and crude advances,” the judges said.
The civil trial is to be heard next month.
kamini.padayachee@inl.co.za
The Mercury
