In a case that has shocked legal professionals and residents of one of Cape Town's most affluent suburbs, Helen Laura Snell and her partner Michael Evander Mac Iver have been exposed in court documents for allegedly orchestrating one of the most malicious, vulgar, and calculated abuses of the South African justice system in recent memory.
What began as a routine harassment complaint in September 2023 quickly disintegrated into a campaign of lies, sexual slander, and personal revenge, executed through sworn affidavits riddled with grotesque language, wild accusations, and deeply disturbing attacks on virtually everyone involved in the case—magistrates, attorneys, spouses, neighbors, and even children.
This is not just a story of a court dispute gone awry. This is a chilling case study of how a legal forum can be hijacked by rage-filled narcissism, weaponized against private individuals, and used to pollute the public record with filth.
The False Harassment Claim - A Legal Trojan Horse?
In September 2023, Snell filed a protection order against her neighbor, accusing him of harassment. But almost immediately, the case began to raise eyebrows.
Snell requested the order be granted ex parte (without notifying the neighbor) a move often used in urgent cases of domestic abuse. The court refused. What followed was a detailed rebuttal from The neighbor, which utterly dismantled Snell's claims.
Then, just two days before the scheduled March 2024 hearing, Snell withdrew the case without offering to pay costs—despite having escalated the matter through several rounds of affidavit submissions filled with incendiary and, by all appearances, knowingly false content.
Mac Iver's Filthy Tirade - And Snell's Full Endorsement
The most disturbing aspect of the case is what Snell included—and endorsed—in her legal papers. A confirmatory affidavit by Michael Evander Mac Iver, filed as part of her court response, contains an avalanche of pornographic, defamatory, and hate-filled remarks, directed at:
- The neighbor, whom he calls a “wanker,” “attempted child murderer,” and “cooked in the head.”
- The Neighbor's wife, whose genitals he repeatedly describes in obscene detail.
- Attorney Greer Penzhorn, whom he brands a “legal fluffer” with “sexually transmitted diseases.”
- Magistrate Plaskett, whom he refers to as a “fucking duplicitous piece of human excrement,” a “massive ass,” and “quite possibly corrupt.”
- The neighbor's legal team, whom he accuses of “bribing the judge” and profiting from “sharing the spoils.”
This is not anonymous social media trash talk. These were statements made under oath, in a court of law. And in her own affidavit, Helen Laura Snell explicitly stated she had read Mac Iver's affidavit and confirmed its contents “insofar as they relate to me.”
The Real Objective: Destroy Through Defamation
Why would anyone submit such appalling material to the court?
According to court filings by The neighbor, the answer is simple: revenge.
When it became clear her legal case had no merit, Snell didn't back down. She doubled down.
“If the court of harassment is not the forum… the only option is to turn to the court of public opinion,” Snell wrote, openly admitting that her aim had shifted to public shaming and community ostracism.
She described how she and Michael Evander Mac Iver had begun circulating their accusations through neighborhood WhatsApp groups, boasting that the neighbors had become “pariahs” and were now “universally derided.”
Mac Iver even included quotes from unnamed neighbors, labelling the magistrate “a piece of human excrement” and speculating about the neighbor's anatomy and sex life. These aren't legal submissions—they’re smear campaign tactics, submitted under the protection of court privilege.
Malicious Motives, Thinly Disguised
Court filings accuse Snell of not only fabricating the original claim, but also misleading the court by omitting key facts, twisting events, and adding outrageous claims with no evidentiary foundation. Her actions, the application argues, were the very definition of:
- Unreasonable: Making statements that were excessive, unfair, and entirely irrelevant.
- Frivolous: Reflecting contempt for the court and a lack of seriousness.
- Vexatious: Designed to harm and provoke, not to seek justice.
The Legal Pushback
The neighbor is now fighting back. His team has applied for punitive costs under section 16 of the Harassment Act, arguing that Snell's actions were a blatant abuse of the court process.
Legal experts say it's rare for such costs to be awarded—but the facts in this case are exceptional.
The application details how Snell and Michael Evander Mac Iver dragged innocent people through the mud, submitted sexual insults and slander as legal argument, and then tried to retreat under the shield of legal privilege.
But privilege doesn't protect statements made with malice, nor those irrelevant to the claim—two conditions that appear to apply across the board in this case.
A Warning to the Public
This case is a warning to South Africans: The legal system can be misused, and reputations can be shredded through sworn lies and calculated defamation—all under the veneer of "justice."
Snell and Michael Evander Mac Iver, far from being victims of harassment, have positioned themselves as serial defamers and courtroom provocateurs, willing to torch reputations and exploit legal protections for personal satisfaction.
If the court grants the neighbor the costs he seeks, it will send a clear message: the justice system is not a weapon for vengeance. And those who try to use it as one may find themselves facing the consequences.