This is the first day of the inquest, I walk up the hill to Lismore court house as the sun rises and silhouettes the array of camera tripods erected by freshly arrived media. I am security checked by the court staff and on the board I see that the coroner's inquest will be in court 3, so upstairs I trundle and wait patiently outside. Various people arrive,three smart looking hackettes from 7, 9 and prime, legal counsel identified by large suitcases on wheels that would not pass muster as hand baggage on a long haul fright, and then interested parties, which seems to be the euphemism for families of the deceased. Very soon we all enter the court room and wait. I see Steve Drummond he looks tired and strained but none the less composed and focused, I feel for him as he sits alone in front of the court waiting. To loose a child is one thing but to pursue justice for that child yourself must be very hard to do and still remain detached and focused enough to chase the answers.
The presiding magistrate enters and the proceedings get underway the first thing explained by the presiding magistrate is that the inquest is inquisitorial and not adversarial it is not about who is to blame for Jai's death it is how did he die.
Much is made of the scurrilous conjecture, rumour, uninformed opinion, and gossip that has surrounded this case and it is noted that it will not be pursued or allowed in these proceedings.
The opening statement is made by the coroner, (I think) the reason I say think is because the sound in the court is so dead I can barely hear. This opening statement involves mapping out of the sequence of events that lead to the event the event it self and what happened immediately after. The Coroner states that he will produce evidences to support the fact that events happened as he described them.
This is all very interesting, given that in today's society of quick sound bites, fractional spin instant gratification and fast sensation. Sitting through a statement of one and a half hours is indeed in need of attention, education, stamina and concentration. The passage of truth it would seem is slow and involved, which I do indeed find refreshing.
The story can be summarised as this, there were two parties, year 9 pupils and year 11 pupils, there was an ongoing dispute over an alloy table used to eat lunch on by both parties in different locations of the school yard. This particular day the year 9 boys had on their patch and the year 11 boys and took it back to their patch. An altercation took place but not started by Jai but he did become involved and the altercation extended and after a fight of about 30-60 seconds Jai ended up launched against a wall where he collapsed on the ground incapacitated by a subarachnoid hemorrhage. The question the Coroner wants to answer is, was the subarachnoid hemorrhage spontaneous or was it traumatic.
Was the hemorrhage from violence or natural causes?
After morning recess the Detective Sargent in charge of the investigation gives his evidence. The evidence presented is from a Detective with 21 years in the force, he cool calm and answers questions put to him in a dispassionate manner. Everything seems to be going to plan, the evidence is inconclusive, & witness statements we are told vary widely in fact so widely that no charges could be laid individually or combined. This is until questions are put to the officer by Steve Drummond. Steve clearly has a difference of opinion over witness statements but sadly is lack of experience and knowledge of these proceedings is holding him back. It seems like it suddenly looks like he is on the footie field with Tim Cahill, he is not in their league, they do this every day they are all hard core pro's. As a result Steve's assertion that there are 4 witness statements regarding 'the fatal wall strike' that do not actually vary widely, is lost in a redirection by the magistrate and lack of exponential tenacity by Steve. Steve clearly takes a different view to evidence than the investigators and here his lack of experience and professional standing stops him from challenging the evidence effectively. it puts him at a disadvantage in the court room that is quite palpable.
I have only lightly brushed over what was submitted in the no3 court today and in this blog I am really trying to get a look at how the system functions when trying to get at the truth. It is a hard slow & cumbersome system that unless worked by first class players the ordinary man has little chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment