A defence lawyer questioned the reliability of an alleged kidnapping victim during his closing address on Tuesday.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Evan Hughes is one of six lawyers representing six people on trial for kidnapping in the Launceston Supreme Court.
During the fourth week of the trial, the jury began hearing closing statements from both the Crown and each defence counsel.
Caine Robert Richardson, Sean Gregory Richardson, Malcolm Joshua Mayne, Matthew Luke Williams, Christopher John Humphreys and Carly Ann Dekkers have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping Anthony Mekhael in 2015.
Mr Hughes, representing Mr Caine Richardson, told the jury on Tuesday that the state’s case was circumstantial, had no direct evidence and relied on previous statements from Mr Mekhael during a video interview with police in 2015 where he made allegations against the accused.
The Crown made its closing address on Monday, urging the jury to consider how the evidence of witnesses matched up with the evidence given by Mr Mekhael during that video interview. But Mr Hughes told the jury to take into account how Mr Mekhael acted during the 153 minute video, which was played earlier in the trial.
He said the alleged victim appeared to be laughing and smiling when describing how he was allegedly assaulted and shot at.
“Is it a laughing matter?” Mr Hughes asked the jury.
“Well it is if you think you’re getting away with something … if the police are treating you as a witness rather than an accused.”
He pointed out that Mr Mekhael asked police “am I getting locked up?”.
Throughout the trial he and other defence lawyers have argued that Mr Mekhael was on bail for drug trafficking at the time he was allegedly kidnapped and owed money to Lebanese drug dealers.
“You may never know what drove him to say what he did in his interview,” Mr Hughes said.
“It’s not like a murder-mystery show … where every motive is revealed. The only question … is whether the state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
Mr Mekhael’s evidence on the trial was that he could not recall the alleged kidnapping, or even remember what he did in 2015. Mr Hughes said his evidence was unable to be cross-examined which made it “fundamentally difficult, if not impossible” for the jury to “properly test that evidence”.
He said cross-examination was a lie-detector test and Mr Mekhael “avoided that test”.
The trial before Justice Robert Pearce continues.
