Welcome to the Love On Campus. I plan to wrap up the story in the next few chapters unless enough people want me to continue. Anyway, I'd really appreciate an email, whether you liked it or not. My next story will be planned around an internet romance (probably). My email is thehaydster@yahoo.com.au. Again, I would love to hear from you. Flames will be cheerfully ignored. Note: Literary license is taken with regard to the court case.
Chapter 15
"Will the prosecution please call their first witness to the stand" Judge Wilson instructed. James stood up and stated "The prosecution calls David Andrews to the stand" I stood up and tried to look composed as I was supposed to, but I was as nervous as hell. "Please raise your right hand" the bailiff instructed. Once I had done that he said "Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" I replied with "I do" upon which I was asked to be seated.
James came up to me and asked me to state my name and occupation for the record, then continued with the questioning. "Mr. Andrews, is it true that you received death threats with respect to your testifying in court against Mr. I replied with "I do" upon which I was asked to be seated.
James came up to me and asked me to state my name and occupation for the record, then continued with the questioning. "Mr. Andrews, is it true that you received death threats with respect to your testifying in court against Mr. Carter (he meant Gordon)?" "Yes sir" "Mr. Andrews, how many of these threats did you receive?" "Four" James produced the 4 threats I had received "Are these the 4 threats you received?" "Yes" James addressed the judge "Your Honour, I wish to submit these letters as Exhibit A for the prosecution". He then handed the bags containing the letters to the bailiff. James then turned back to me, and continued. "On the 7th of April, were you attacked?" "Yes" "How many people attacked you?" "Six" "Were any of these people armed?" "Yes sir, two were armed with darts" "Are the defendants the men that attacked you?" "Objection! Leading the witness!" the barrister cried. "Sustained" the judge replied
"Allow me to rephrase that. From this set of 12 photographs, can you point out your six attackers?" I pointed out the six that attacked me. "Your Honour, I submit this set of 12 photographs as Exhibit B for the prosecution" "Mr. Andrews, when these men attacked you, what happened?" "They announced their intention to kill us, and then two of them threw darts at us. The two police officers jumped in front of Alex and myself and were hit with the darts. Then the attackers ran towards us. As they ran Officers DeFinis and Baker pushed us to the ground as shots were fired." "Mr. Andrews, did you see the attackers as the shots were fired?" "I saw 3 of them. They were all wounded in a leg, and the one carrying the darts was also wounded in the arm carrying the darts." With that James re-produced the photographs. "Would you please mark the 3 attackers that were wounded by the gunshots?" I did so and he continued with: "I would like to submit these 6 hospital reports as Exhibit C for the prosecution. Your honour, I have no more questions for this witness." The barrister stood up for the cross-examination, this was the scary part.
The barrister opened with "David Andrews, the defendants are charged with intimidation of a witness regarding the death threats you received. Do the letters submitted as exhibit A have any indication that they were sent by any of the defendants?" "No sir" I replied. "Do you have any reason to believe that the threats were sent by the defendants?" he asked "Objection, your honour. Calls for an opinion" James broke in "Objection overruled" The judge replied "Mr. Andrews, please answer the question" the barrister said to me. "Yes I do, your honour. Alex and I were attacked by the defendants, and it seems reasonable that the same people who made death threats would be the same people that tried to kill us." "That is a very flimsy reason, Mr. Andrews" "Is that a question or a statement, sir?" I replied in an icy voice "Is this transcript of the dialogue during the alleged `attack' accurate?" the barrister continued, showing me a piece of paper. I read it and agreed that it was. "Your honour, I wish to submit this document as exhibit A for the defence" the barrister stated formally. He then turned back to me and continued with: "Mr. Andrews, were the darts produced before or after the defendants were told that they were arrested?" "After, sir" "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove that these darts were used in self-defence. Mr. Andrews, could the statement that they were covered by firearms imply that Officers DeFinis and Baker were the ones covering them?" "Yes sir" "I have no further questions for this witness, your honour" I left the stand and sat down next to Alex.
Alex was called next, and agreed with my statements, but was quizzed by the barrister for some reason that we could have provoked the attack. When he asked Alex if he and I were in a homosexual relationship I nearly shouted "Objection!" as well as James. Unbelievably, the judge overruled it. Eventually Alex was dismissed.
Officer Casey was called to the stand and proved to be a very good witness. He agreed with everything James asked him, and steadfastly denied any evidence of us being provoked, or our attackers being entrapped (enticed to commit a crime that they would normally not do). After that James stated "Your Honour, the prosecution rests."
The barrister stood up and called Patrick Jones (the first guy who was holding the darts). He admitted to carrying the darts and denied intending to use them as a weapon, claiming he was on his way back to college with them. Unfortunately, the gardens where the attack occurred were between the bus terminal and St. Marks, also a dart packet was found in his pockets when he was arrested. He also claimed that we had been flaunting our sexuality in front of him, and claiming "he didn't have the balls to take on a pair of queers". James objected to quite a few of the questions, but was overruled, and the judge sustained all the objections by the barrister.
Mitchell Daniels, the second guy with the darts was much of the same, but James managed to rattle him quite well, and make him appear incompetent.
The real shock came when Mr. Gavens was called to the stand. Apparently Mr. Johnsson had been ordered to oust me from college once Alex and I were outed, and under no circumstances to let Alex in (we were allegedly `threats to the college community'). He claimed that we had both made advances to our attackers, daring them to beat us up amongst other things. Once he was turned over to James though, James blew him out of the water, or as much as he could, as the barrister kept objecting and the judge wouldn't let James treat Mr. Gavens as a hostile witness. James succeeded admirably in making him appear a liar and incompetent, so it looked like the jury wouldn't believe him. After that the defence rested their case.
The judge called for them both to sum up their cases then. James summed up concisely, not saying much new. The barrister was a different matter. He accused Alex and I of daring them to beat us up and it constituting entrapment. He also claimed that they had no link to the death threats at all. The jury was out for only 5 minutes.
We were all seated in the courtroom and the jury came back in. "Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge addressed the foreman (spokesman) of the jury. "Your honour, the jury has not, and the jury wishes to recommend this case is taken before the High Court (the highest court in Australia)" the foreman replied. "That is not possible, the jury must reach a verdict!" the judge said angrily, "You must continue to deliberate!"
"Your honour, I must disagree with you on that point" One of the juror said in a quiet and refined voice as he stood. The judge berated him for not knowing the law regarding cases, and stating that the jury had to reach a verdict. Once the judge had finished, the man said "Your honour, due to your lack of impartiality, the High Court will accept this case, and you may be fired also, for the same reason." "Only judges of the High Court have the power to decide whether the High Court will hear a case. You don't have the right to say that they will, nor does the jury have the right to refer the case." As he said this the man took a small document wallet out of his pocket.
"Your honour" he replied, still in the quiet voice, but with a tinge of anger, "under section 56 of the criminal code, the jury may refer a case to a higher court if they believe that it has been dealt with unfairly, and this shows my authority to accept the case on behalf of the High Court and also to place you on probation unlit you may be brought before the High Court." With that he handed the judge the small wallet.
The judge opened the wallet with a look of scorn on his face. As he read the paper inside, his face registered disbelief, then turned white. "J-justice Kirsch" he stammered. "Yes, Judge Wilson, I am Justice Kirsch of the High Court, and I accept the case on behalf of the High Court Of The Commonwealth Of Australia, and suspend you under the same authority." Dead silence settled over the courtroom.