Scott’s Reviews > R v Milat: A Case Study in Cross-Examination > Status Update

Justice David Hunt proceeded almost immediately to sentencing. There was no request for an adjournment and no plea in mitigation, apart from Milat saying to the judge, ‘I’m not guilty of it. That’s all I have to say.’

... the cross-examiner teases out the strength of the evidence by directly asking the witness to consider each aspect of the description given by Onions ... this serves as a reminder to the jury of the description given by Onions ... the jury are assisted to make a direct comparison with the witness ... Consider how much more effective it is to put these particulars of description through the witness himself ...

[The Jones v Dunkel] direction was quite common in criminal trials at the time of the Milat trial, but the High Court has since held in Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 that such reasoning will only be available in the most unusual circumstances and that, as a general rule, such a direction should not be given because of the basic rule that it is for the prosecution to prove its case.

a question which, by echoing other evidence in the case, also makes a subliminal submission to the jury: The phrase ‘I’m not 100 per cent sure’ was given as an answer to a number of questions asked of Richard Milat

The prosecution was entitled to, and did, rely on the legal doctrine of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ ... the prosecution had only to establish that Ivan Milan participated in the murders, either alone or with one or more other persons; it was not necessary to establish in relation to each murder which of the participants (if, indeed, there was more than one) stabbed, shot or killed the individual victims.

In Edwardian times, before radio, television and the movies, court watching was a very popular pastime, and Londoners, New Yorkers and Sydneysiders alike would await jury verdicts in high-profile trials in a fever of anticipation.