|Advocate Stephen Baker|
"Right - how did it go in court today?
The predictable result, of course. Application to quash thrown out.
But apart from that - the events of today were startlingly useful - better than I dared hope.
Of particular interest were the mutually exclusive effects of the judgment - which essentially means - if correct - that I can't have reviewed the legality of the decisions of the Attorney General as a stand-alone matter - because I can already question them in the criminal appeal - but I can't question them in the criminal appeal - because general questions of the lawfulness or otherwise of the Attorney General's decisions have been deemed "not relevant" in the criminal appeal.
How great is that?
But - it gets better.
The judge fully accepted the truth and honesty of Graham Power's affidavit.
And - he asked the prosecuting Advocate, Stephen Baker, if the Attorney General's Office did too?
And Baker said yes!
It gets better.
The judge agreed that Graham Power's affidavit is admitted as evidence in the proceedings. (not, of course, that that is going to be much use - well, not in this case anyway - because the question of the lawfulness of the conduct of the Attorney General has been deemed "not relevant".) So at least the essential validity of the document and thus its evidential value is now established. So all they can do is quibble over the accuracy of Mr. Power's memory. Which is great - I'm sure his memory is fine - and, hey - why, if accurate recall of the facts is disputed, why, great; let's get it all tested in open court. (the next case.)
But - but - but - and this was so exciting I had to resist the urge to hop from one foot to the other, so electrifying was it - Stephen Baker gave an answer to a question from the judge.
His answer nuked the prosecution.
I've repeatedly asked for disclosure of evidence throughout the whole case. 90% of that disclosure has been refused. Amongst the material I have sought - entirely correctly - was the evidence of relevance to my abuse-of-process and malicious prosecution arguments. Quite specifically, I have repeatedly asked for - and been refused the evidence relevant to Graham Power's suspension.
I argued that such evidence might show exactly the kind of unlawful conflict of interests on the part of William Bailhache's, that we see in Graham's affidavit.
Stephen Baker has repeatedly refused to make any such disclosures - on the grounds that he has examined and considered all such evidence - and he can therefore state to the court that none of it contained anything of relevance to the defence arguments.
So what question did the judge ask him today?
"So, there is nothing of any relevance to Mr. Syvret's arguments in Graham Power's statements to Wiltshire?"
"I don't know sir - I haven't read them."
Ahh - Strasbourg - here we come!!!
Of all of these various court battles - I can state with some confidence - today's hearing is the first Strasbourg dead-cert. (with more to come.)
Hmmmm.... all of those very serious and onerous responsibilities upon a prosecution to consider all the available evidence - and to very carefully determine it's disclosure value to the defence - on all kinds of grounds, for example, relevance to any possible breach of the accused's ECHR rights.
And the prosecution now confesses - "it hasn't read the evidence" -not withstanding nearly two years worth of confident assertions that none of it was "of relevance" or deserving of disclosure to the accused.