Timothy Marsh

So often forensic pathologists are called quite early in that process.

But in an ideal world, I will know the answer to every single question that I'm going to be asking in a trial.

Anyone who thinks that you're going into a trial with sort of loose ends, loose threads dangling and that you're going to tug on one of those in the hope that you're going to get the aha moment, that's not how it works, certainly not with witnesses like that.

You want everything locked down pretty tightly.

You're just performing it for the benefit of the jury.

Yeah, and it may be that there is other information that's come to light that you can put forward.

But the idea that you've locked the witness into a version of events at a preliminary hearing is a pretty common expectation.

So I think in order to answer that question fairly, you have to understand the nature of everybody's role in court.

And so in the examples that you gave, you know, this person has done something.

Well, if it's a trial, we don't know the answer to that question.

In fact, that's the entire point of the trial is to determine that, determine that to the requisite standard that we as a society require an offence to be proven to.

That's beyond reasonable doubt.

If it's a plea of guilty and the person is admitted that they did the thing, then my role is not to say that they didn't do it, but to ensure that they are sentenced on a basis that takes into account all of the relevant factors.

And that can include ventilating things like childhood trauma, disadvantage, the person's psychological or psychiatric diagnoses.

Absolutely, that process can be me trying to humanise the accused in a way that generates empathy for their situation.

I make no bones about

necessarily has an agenda.

It's not something that necessarily means a person's going to get a lighter sentence.

And so, you know, when you're advancing arguments about childhood trauma or about mental illness, those are often arguments that carry negative consequences as well.

And a judge may well be satisfied that a person's moral culpability is reduced because of factors personal to themselves, but may simultaneously be satisfied that there is an elevated need to protect the community because this person remains a risk.