[51] In this context the learned judge was inclined to make comments to counsel such as 'You are really wasting my time' or similar expressions of impatience. For example, counsel introduced two statements by Inspector Monageng, exhibits S and T. He had initially stated that he had found three suspects at the premises and arrested them. In the second statement he changed the number to two. During the exchange the judge commented that counsel was wasting his time: 'Mr Shapiro: Now let me ask you the question. When did you amend this affidavit by changing three to two? During the time whilst I was busy writing the statement.' â”€ Mr Shapiro did not pursue this line of questioning but moved on to the next aspect, after having sought that these statements be admitted. The judge then said: 'Court: You have now handed up exhibits S and T. Mr Shapiro: Yes. Court: You did not ask the witness a single thing on exhibit T. You have asked him some questions in respect of aspects which he did not testify to in his evidence-in-chief as far as exhibit S is concerned. Why did you ask me to take these exhibits into the record? Mr Shapiro: Because in exhibit T there was a statement there that the, a suspect was spotted by the helicopter and I was going to ask that and then I thought better of it. Court: Please, Mr Shapiro, in future, do not overload the record with unnecessary documentation. If there is no reason for handing in a statement, I do not want statements handed in.' The remark by the judge was, in my view, appropriate under the circumstances. [52] Counsel described such remarks as 'rude, off-putting, disconcerting and blatantly unfair'. What must be borne in mind is that the counsel in question has behind him many years in practice, he is no shrinking violet, and the record provides no evidence that his was adversely affected or curtailed by the attitude of the court. In fairness to the judge, he was also pushed to the limit by counsel's apparent lack of insight into relevance and his failure to understand the operation of the hearsay rule. The record indicates much jostling and repartee between the judge and counsel. Although the judge may have been hasty and was troubled by counsel's antics, he was very reasonable with him. The judge's approach was
[51] In this context the learned judge was inclined to make comments to counsel such as 'You are really wasting my time' or similar expressions of impatience. For example, counsel introduced two statements by Inspector Monageng, exhibits S and T. He had initially stated that he had found three suspects at the premises and arrested them. In the second statement he changed the number to two. During the exchange the judge commented that counsel was wasting his time: 'Mr Shapiro: Now let me ask you the question. When did you amend this affidavit by changing three to two? â”€ During the time whilst I was busy writing the statement.' Mr Shapiro did not pursue this line of questioning but moved on to the next aspect, after having sought that these statements be admitted. The judge then said: 'Court: You have now handed up exhibits S and T. Mr Shapiro: Yes. Court: You did not ask the witness a single thing on exhibit T. You have asked him some questions in respect of aspects which he did not testify to in his evidence-in-chief as far as exhibit S is concerned. Why did you ask me to take these exhibits into the record? Mr Shapiro: Because in exhibit T there was a statement there that the, a suspect was spotted by the helicopter and I was going to ask that and then I thought better of it. Court: Please, Mr Shapiro, in future, do not overload the record with unnecessary documentation. If there is no reason for handing in a statement, I do not want statements handed in.' The remark by the judge was, in my view, appropriate under the circumstances. [52] Counsel described such remarks as 'rude, off-putting, disconcerting and blatantly unfair'. What must be borne in mind is that the counsel in question has behind him many years in practice, he is no shrinking violet, and the record provides no evidence that his was adversely affected or curtailed by the attitude of the court. In fairness to the judge, he was also pushed to the limit by counsel's apparent lack of insight into relevance and his failure to understand the operation of the hearsay rule. The record indicates much jostling and repartee between the judge and counsel. Although the judge may have been hasty and was troubled by counsel's antics, he was very reasonable with him. The judge's approach was