Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:09:02 +1000
From: The Haydster <thehaydster@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Love On Campus - Chapter 15

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.