LibriumArcana.Games

So, went to Melbourne yesterday and attended Chris' appeal today.

A general summary follows:-

The grounds for appeal:-

There were three main issues of the appeal/ attacking the prosecution's case:-

"Relationship Evidence"

This was the crux of the prosecution's case. In effect, at trial the prosecution tendered evidence (and this evidence was admitted) that Chris' comments to a Detective in a police car about his general family history went to evidence of the relationship he had with his father at the time of his father's murder. If properly admitted, this evidence could've justifiably been used by the jury to establish motive.

The appeal grounds in this regard was that this so-called evidence was so tenuous and remote that it should never have been admitted at trial and was highly prejudicial.

"Opportunity"

Reliance on the fact that Chris was present at the family home at the time of the murder and so had opportunity to commit the murder.

"Similarity"

Reliance on the fact that someone generally similar to Chris was observed by witnesses at the time of the murder outside.

And just in case those three fell down (i.e. "and anyway, if you don't accept any of that"):-

"Unsafe/ Unsatisfactory Verdict"

The general ground that finding Chris guilty, on the strength of the evidence, was unsafe and unsatisfactory (i.e. generally carried too great a risk that Chris was being wrongfully convicted) - the evidence simply did not entitle the jury to find Chris guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

------

The entire focus of the barrister's verbal submissions (there were written ones also) to the court was on the "relationship" issue, because without this, the prosecution had absolutely no case. The admissions made by prosecution at trial and the facts of the case meant that the jury had to find the relationship evidence probative beyond a reasonable doubt to reach a guilty verdict.

As I said above, the appeal ground was that this so-called "evidence" should never have been admitted in the first place.

What was this evidence? Chris' comments to the detective that he had been angry at his father ... not at the time of the offence - but back in fucking high school. Worse, unanimous family + friend evidence at trial had refuted that Chris harbored any anger at his father (which teenager doesn't rebel against his parents?!) currently.

Plainly, it was submitted that this evidence was entirely remote from the night of the murder. It was useless and it was out of context (Chris comment that he "held a lot of anger inside" could've been comparing himself to his brother, he wasn't talking about his father at all), but the evidence was left ringing in the jury's ears (on re-examination after cross) as if Chris held "a lot of anger" inside of him.

It was also submitted that the trial judge's directions to the jury about how to use relationship evidence were incorrect in that they would've certainly created the inference in the jury's mind that this evidence had value, when at law it clearly did not- what he should've told them is that it couldn't be used- there was simply no way it was relevant to the murder.

There were three judges. The "head" judge of the particular court (he was sitting in the centre so I shall call him so) appeared to accept everything Chris' barrister had to say on this point. Indeed, he wanted our barrister to kind of move on because he was belaboring the point somewhat by referring to well-settled law that established how "relationship" evidence was to be used (i.e. that it has to be probative re: the relationship at the time of the murder).

It was highly prejudicial and simply not probative.

A lot more was said on this, but that's the summary

The barrister then moved on to unsafe/ unsatisfactory verdict - i.e. he made the general comment (referring to the statement of a judge in Western Australia a few years back) that he "wouldn't hang a brown dog on the evidence before me". That's a pretty effective summary of this part of the argument. There's simply nothing in this case and it's inconceivable Chris was ever charged.

-----

Then the prosecution got up. I breathed in. He basically ...

Conceded.

Unheard of. We (Chris' lawyer, myself, my friend Maria, a judge sitting in the back watching) had collectively never seen it before.

One of the very first things he said was that a neutral view of the evidence ... doesn't go anywhere.

The judge, in speaking to the prosecution, asked him directly whether he thought there was, and I quote, "a distinct possibility that this trial has gone off the rails".

The prosecutor, bless him for his honesty and candour, said YES.

The judge commended him for this.

The prosecutor went on to say that the proseuction case was not going to get any better, and that without the relationship evidence, there's simply nothing in it.

The prosecutor even in response to the judge referring to the tenuous "identity" issue (which at trial the prosecution rightly did not rely on, since it was useless) that the person "similar" to Chris was wearing entirely different clothes, and those clothes were never found.

----

The judges then left for a few minutes. Chris sat quietly in the dock. Everyone agreed acquittal was assured, perhaps immediately.

The judges came back and said judgement was reserved - the barrister spoke to us and said as far as he was concerned, in the circumstances, the only possible live issue is whether Chris will be acquitted (i.e. not guilty, case closed, go home and sorry for wasting years of your life) or a re-trial (i.e. yay! do-over).

In my view, Chris is going home, and soon. The fact that the prosecution effectively conceded, the fact that there's just no evidence without that improper relationship evidence, means that a re-trial would be a huge waste of time.

So ends my report.

General Havoc wrote:I get the sense that there is something going on here I ought to be asking about... ?