Originally Posted by
Onmybike
the Human Rights Act says there should be a fair trial. But the UK courts work by discretion and in the first original trial Magistrates Court Judge John Charles seemed to assume the doctor could do no wrong but whatever he used his discretion to prevent defence witnesses to say the doctor did wrong.
Similar tricks at the Crown Court appeal.
At both trials the Judge said the doctor (an experienced expert in giving evidence in the witness box the criminal courts) was too vulnerable etc to be cross examined by Maurice and a court appointed lawyer was used to pretend some kind of credible questioning had occurred. But the essential questions were never put to the doctor at the trials.
The EU case law on fair trials introduces the theme of "proportionality" but the courts will not examine the extent to which the doctor is the problem to determine proportionate terms to a Restraining Order or sentence.
You've been listening to MK again.
The doctor was not cross-examined by MK because as a victim of MK's harrassment allowing it would have allowed further harrassment. MK would have gone 'off-piste', so it was understandable the judge took this line.
It is quite appropriate in such cases