ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE?
While the 'Fletcher matter' was predictably resolved with his acquittal a couple of weeks ago, the question remains on the table as to why this prosecution opened after a very long delay and in circumstances where the outcome was so reasonably evident from the 'moment' the hearing of the charges began.
In my mind there is a story here that has not been told -- a story that should be told about why the prosecution was launched and the practical consequences of it running on for some three weeks.
In my mind everyone in the court had more useful things to do with both their time and the money spent.
In would like to see an application made for 'costs' and, if it was to be resisted, to sit in on an open hearing that required a full explanation of the decision to proceed to prosecution.
The Fletcher matter looks like an open and shut case,
..... a case that should not have been opened should now be shut.
It won’t be and that is the real question on the table for discussion.
In effect this case ran to three sentences:
1. The accused, Stephen Charles Fletcher was arraigned on 2 October 2019 ........... an indictment charging 78 counts .............. asserting that he dishonestly either obtained a benefit or caused a disadvantage by a deceptive act
2. At the conclusion of the Crown case on 17 October 2019 the accused made an application for directed verdicts on all counts on the indictment.
107. I will direct verdicts of acquittal in respect of the 78 counts on the indictment.