alioop
Verified Attorney (AU)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,132
- Reaction score
- 4
Hi all
Reporting in as I was at the court today. I've been busy with children and baby this afternoon and tonight so that is why I'm late checking in.
MSM has covered the mention nicely however after reading all your posts I just wanted to clarify one point. The purpose of the adjournment this time to 5/11/12 was to allow DPP time to go through the 466 statements and work out which ones they would be relying on more-so than giving defense time to sort out cross-examination. At least that's what the prosecution requested at today's mention.
Mahony sought a tentative date for the hearing emphasising that his client was 'still' held in custody.
Also, the parties agreed that if there were any issues of cross-examination that could be agreed to by consent then the matter could vacate on 15 November next. I didn't really understand this terminology so perhaps Alioop could help me out?
I was hoping to meet any of you interested in attending today at the cafe but my friend just wanted the two of us to go.
We did meet a woman who was at the last mention also and had a chat outside the court with her for a good 15 mins. She had a number of insights on a personal level however I cannot elaborate here on her comments can I? Is that against the rules?
As reported in MSM already but just to clarify from my own personal note-taking today, a date has been set for the Committal Hearing for the purpose of cross-examining witnesses in court 39 on 20/11/12 at 9am. The parties agree that they are expecting to announce readiness to proceed to hearing by the next mention on 5/11/12.
Hope I've worded this clear enough. Feel free to ask away.
Cheers!
Hi Chekout, thanks for going to court today. What was reported back to me was that the defence is to provide list of witnesses for cross-exam by 15 Oct and prosecution's response is to be by 29 Oct. The mention on the 5th november would be to see where that was up to. My understanding of what normally happens is that if the prosecution does not agree to all of the defence's cross examination requests, then the defence makes an application and the magistrate has to decide, presumably on the 20th Nov if there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the requested witness who made the statement should attend court to give oral evidence or be made available for cross-examination.
To link all that with what you heard, perhaps it was just the defence suggesting they have a chat with the prosecution about the witnesses and they come to an agreement about which ones are the most appropriate to cross examine which I guess would be whichever are the key witnesses with the main evidence against GBC. Then if there is agreement there would be no need to have an application heard on the 20th and that date could be vacated which means invalidated or cancelled. But a committal hearing would still have to be held at some date to be determined. A committal hearing can take days or weeks even.
So I don't think the committal itself is set for the 20th is what I am trying to say.