drew magistrate capel (not sure i spelt that right, i only found out the name of the magistrate by asking the prosecutor before the magistrate appeared out of the magic wardrobe).
magistrate capel was good, in that he wasn’t bad — wasn’t rude, short-tempered, dismissive or any other of the attributes i’ve come to expect from magistrates.
he even made the effort to explain proceedings to me, as i was representing myself (even if it was only to make things easier for him), and he didn’t start with the presumption of mental illness and inability to comprehend legal proceedings, as most do.
after some brief evidence giving from the charging police officer and myself, i briefly and awkwardly discussed my defence in a hap-hazard fashion.
i then gave the prosecution and magistrate a copy of my submissions, at which point the magistrate decided to adjourn the proceedings for further hearing once both he and the prosecution had a chance to read the submissions, which was logical and what i thought would be best.
it seems like magistrate capel is at least willing to engage with the human rights argument, which is a start, but his respectful demeanour really does nothing to reveal what his political views are, those views of course totally deciding the way he will interpret the legislation.
the case was adjourned until 10:00am wednesday the 18th of september
