Crown prosecutor Rosa Sharma told the court
1. The "known paedophile" was not responsible for the sexual assaults because he was in prison at the time of the alleged offences. "The [paedophile] was out of the picture. He was in jail."
2. Spedding was a flight risk and should not be granted bail.
3. The 64-year-old represented a "danger to the community".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/bill-spedding-in-court-for-child-sexual-offences/6553814
Surely those three reasons alone should had dispersuaded Judge Bellew from giving Spedding bail.
Do you think that these three reasons alone should have been sufficient for the Judge to keep Spedding behind bars?
What other reason s could have been given"?
Tampering with evidence? Interfering with witnesses?
Was Rose Sharma ill-prepared or was Judge Geoffrey Bellew not listening to her
There is nothing online about Rose Sharma and her experience.
But it appears to me that Judge Bellew must have believed that there was an element of doubt and did not listen or believe in what Rose Sharma stated.
It appears that the Defence did not have a copy of the mother's statement and the dates of the medical evidence. Was this on purpose or was the Prosecution purposely denying them of it?
No wonder Jubelin wasa angry about it all!