• judasferret
    4·
    1 year ago

    I’m no lawyer but this document is a real doozy. It’s a court transcript where the defendant is having a right old go at the judge. The bloke’s dropping F-bombs left, right, and center, and he’s not holding back on the insults either.

    He’s telling the judge to stick the trial up his arse, calling him a ‘stupid old cbomb’, a ‘lard arse’, and even asking him to order a pizza. He’s also threatening to ‘slash up’ or ‘do something’ if he doesn’t get his way.

    The judge, on the other hand, is keeping his cool, responding calmly to the defendant’s outbursts, and even making a joke about being called worse things on the rugby paddock.

    In the end, the defendant’s lawyers ask to withdraw from the case, and the judge grants their request. The defendant is left without representation, and the judge orders the trial to start the next day. The defendant, of course, is not happy about this and continues his tirade of insults and threats.

    So, in a nutshell, it’s a wild ride of a court case with a defendant who’s got a mouth on him like a sailor and a judge who’s got the patience of a saint.

        • withersailor
          2·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, looking at the articles: “Court documents published online reveal lawyers for David Allan Baker, who is in his 50s, were able to convince two of the three presiding appeal justices that the 2012 trial judge had not complied with the Queensland Criminal Code.” and “Barrister James Godbolt, for Baldwin, said it was in his client’s favour that he called 000, remained at the scene of the stabbing and made admissions to police.” He decided he would get along with lawyers after all.

          Thanks for an interesting case.

  • withersailor
    2·
    1 year ago

    Interesting read! That’d be a trail to sit in on I’d think.