- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 868
- Reaction score
- 6,852
From the prosecution opening speech:
"This is not a family court, it is a criminal court. That decision was a lawful and a correct one.
You must, and this is important, therefore proceed in this trial on the basis that those four children were taken into care from these defendants lawfully and properly. If any attempt is made by the defendants in this trial to suggest anything to the contrary then that is something that you must and should ignore and it would be, we suggest, a deliberate distraction by them from the reality."
I hope the media report the defence opening speech in which surely they will respond to this.
Also just on the strength of this, I reckon in the event of a guilty verdict this would be extremely likely to go to appeal.
A defendant is surely allowed to say that he carried out such and such an action because he believed that an action by a public official or judge was unlawful or improper. Otherwise it could go like this:
Counsel: "You did X?" (With "X" being an action that is not in itself unlawful.)
Witness: "Yes".
Counsel: "Why?"
Witness: "I'd like to tell you, but I'm not allowed to, or at least the Crown has said I should be ignored if I do".
That's not good justice.
Might it be to do with what is and isn't agreed evidence? I remember a lot of debate about this in the last trial, there's stuff they have all agreed as facts which they aren't meant to spend time arguing in this trial, I can't remember now what this debate centered on or around.


