Today's Courier Mail records one of the most inane arguments in the history of Australian law.
Defence lawyer Paul Marin argued [the photographs] should not be admitted into evidence because they were highly prejudicial and irrelevant. He later tried to have publication of them suppressed because people would think his client was "an Islamic terrorist".
Mr Marin told the court the photographs had no context and went no way to proving the charges against his client.
"We are talking about a man with an AK-47 in battle dress and there is no basis on which they can be tendered," he argued.
"What do these photographs have to do with terrorism? It could have been taken as a tourist shot."
As a "tourist shot"? Perhaps with Ivan Molloy tours?
1 comments:
Not the best of legal arguments. The defence lawyer, first argues they are irrelevant as they have no context and could be a "tourist shot" (by which I hope they mean photograph). He then later tries to have publication banned in case people think his client is an "Islamic terrorist".
Surely they'll just think he's a tourist?
Post a Comment