Mpshe copied Hong Kong judge's ruling

Red-faced officials have admitted that acting National Prosecuting Authority head Mokotedi Mpshe plagiarised a Hong Kong judge in his explanation of why he was dropping all charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma.

But NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali insisted yesterday that Mpshe's failure to acknowledge his borrowing of Hong Kong High Court Justice Conrad Seagrott's December 2002 ruling in his reasoning on the Zuma decision was an "innocent oversight".

"We are recognising that what we said was based on that judgment and we are in no way attempting to pass that ruling off as our own. We regret the oversight, but it in no way detracts from the decision that advocate Mpshe reached (on the case against Zuma)," Tlali said.

Tlali said Mpshe was fully aware his statement on the Zuma decision would receive international media attention and so would not have deliberately plagiarised any material.

Mpshe, who is on leave, was not available for comment on why he had relied so heavily on the Seagrott decision, which was overturned on appeal.

James Myburgh, editor of the website politicsweb.co.za, revealed yesterday that large tracts of Mpshe's lengthy explanation were word-for-word copies of a judgment handed down by Seagrott.

In words echoed by Mpshe in his reasoning on the Zuma decision, Seagrott said: "It is against this evolved statement of broad principle that the prosecution's failures and shortcomings with regard to disclosure must be seen and tested. Those for close consideration are best summed up by such expressions as 'so gravely wrong', 'gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness', 'so unfair and wrong', 'misusing or manipulating the process of the court'. If those failures can properly be so categorised, are they such as to make it unconscionable that a re-trial should go forward?"

Mpshe wrote: "It is against this broad principle of abuse of process that the conduct of Mr McCarthy must be seen and tested. The question for close consideration is encapsulated in expressions such as 'so gravely wrong', 'gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness', 'so unfair and wrong', 'misusing or manipulating the process of the court'. If the conduct can be so categorised, it would be unconscionable for the trial to continue."

Myburgh reported that one section of Seagrott's judgment was headed "The abuse of process - the perennial dilemma".

Myburgh said: "It - rather strikingly - cites all the British Commonwealth judgments that Mpshe's statement referred to. Even more strikingly the phrases quoted are almost all the same as well."

He asked whether the rulings used to justify Mpshe's decision to drop the Zuma charges were "really relevant".

With acknowledgements to Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.