Unlawful denial of the right
to defend effectively in Court

During the trial the accuser said one lie too many by claiming to still have lumps on his head 15 months after the incident and he also challenged a barrister cross examining him .

1-75-4- ( the accuser )… ' got the lumps to prove it …'

'…Do you want me to shave ? Get a shaver , I`ll shave my head and show you . '

I wanted to call his bluff and I made a legitimate submission to the judge to have the accuser examined in court by a doctor to prove if he was lying or not .

My request was based of few facts :

- I knew that I did not hit him on the head – therefore I was certain that he lied

- I knew that there was no evidence of any damage ( including ' lumps ' ) to his head as indicated during medical examination in hospital

- it is rather impossible to have ' lumps ' on the head still present 15 months after being hit

2-3-20 - ( me to the judge )…
' would it be possible to bring Mr XXXXX back and have him examined by that doctor '

The lack of lumps on his head would prove that he was lying about being hit on the head and committing perjury . Since I had the right to defend myself from his attack , the issue of - who hit who first - is of great importance , it had significance in determining how the incident started and to resolve the substance and value of the accuser claims .

2-3-25 - ( judge ) … ' you can raise the issue of his head injuries with the doctor , you can make points about the evidence in relation to his claims about head injuries . Beyond that I can`t take the matter any further. It's a matter for the prosecution how she conducts her case.'

The trial judge erred in her decision to deny my submission :

The trial judge has power and discretion to fairly and honestly intervene in matters of law and justice without bias and is authorised by law to make rulings in the interest of truth , fairness and justice .
Since I brought before the judge a clearly important and relevant issue , at the suggestion of the accuser himself , my submission should have been allowed and the judge`s discretion in this matter was exercised unreasonably .

Judges decision had the negative impact on the fairness of the trial .

As the result of that decision the prosecution avoided having their witness being exposed as liar , committing perjury and discredited in front of jury and I lost the opportunity to show that I was not the person who attacked first . The accuser was granted the privilege to lie .

In my address to the jury I said :

3-4-2– ( me ) ' I proposed that his head will be shaven and the doctor who came yesterday to give evidence , inspect his head '

3-4-7– ( judge ) – ' you never challenged the witness in that respect then he was in the witness box '

3-4-7– (me ) – ' I brought it up yesterday '

3-4-9– ( judge ) - ' No '

Judges denial , of my request to have the accuser examined , showed me as a liar in front of jury when in fact it was the judge misleading the jury .

- Is it the role of the trial judge to be involved in the protection of the prosecution witness who is lying in Court ?!

- Apart from the trial judge desire to protect the prosecution case against me – there was no reason – legal , procedural or practical – to deny me my submission .

- Judge`s action deprived me the opportunity to expose the accuser as a liar in court under oath before the jury .

- Judge`s action deprived me the fair opportunity to defend myself .

- Judge`s action deprived the jury to see the accuser as the liar in court .

- During the summing up the judge failed to raise that issues with the jury and she should have referred them to the hospital records and doctors testimony showing that there was no evidence of attack to the head .

- I was denied the natural justice and the miscarriage of justice has happened due to the failure to grant me a proper opportunity to defend myself and a fair trial I am entitled to

Legal reference : Fullagar J. in Mraz v. Queen [1955] 93 C.L.R. 493 at p.514

…' if there is any failure to conduct a trial at which the rules of procedure and evidence are strictly followed , and the accused may thereby have lost a chance which was fairly open to him of being acquitted , there is in the eye of the law a miscarriage of justice '…

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection by the law .