I just had a window of opportunity, as they say.
I'm an (unconfirmed) Qld lawyer, semi retired, long time since law school, and never much involved in criminal work.
But I wish that it could be stressed that we are not seeing the prosecution case in public. There are hundreds of witness statements in the form of affidavits and stat decs that have been presented to the magistrate.
This is only a committal and the purpose of these few days PUBLIC days is for the defence, to have the opportunity to challenge the evidence of whatever witnesses it has been mutually agreed on. ONLY THOSE.
I mean, there may be plenty of other statements that go along the same line or similar, and the weight of those combined, will be for a jury to decide on, if the matter goes to trial.
So, we are NOT seeing the prosectution case, that will come if/when a trial, and that WILL be presented in a logical order at the decision of the prosecution.
We may NOT see all the parties that people think are interesting in this case, either because they are potential witnesses, or their statements have not so far been challenged.
As to the role of the defense and prosecution, please don't give them little "good" and "bad" hats.
The underlying principle in this land is that we don't have a kangaroo court or a gang of deputies go and string someone up (though I do miss those westerns from my youth!)
The system of law requires that a person be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The Defence lawyers are not OBLIGED to ask the defendant whether they are innocent or guilty. If a defendant confesses, other rules apply.
But the Defendant has the right to have the evidence against them tested, as to there being sound testimony, evidence, reliable, no prejudice, no bias.
No dreams of screams, no mis-timings, no imaginations, no later recalls.
A lawyer is an officer of the court - they take an oath to uphold justice just as if they were a magistrate or judge. That's what you say and sign up for.
So, there are ethical rules as to what you can and can't do in the interests of your client, whether you know (or even suspect) they may be guilty.
You are entitled to investigate any witness for accuracy and truthfullness, especially if there are discrepancies
You are entitled to question someone's motives in giving evidence
and .... such
You are allowed to bring into question, other possibilities, but you are not allowed to blame another specific person, without evidence.
So to my mind, and without being there, the defence is doing, what they need to do
AND ITS ONLY A COMMITTAL HEARING YOU ARE NOT LIKELY TO SEE ANY OF THE WITNESSES YOU WANT TO UNTIL THE TRIAL.
Sorry so long I'll flip off now
