McConchie: let me tell you how real courts work

Roger McConchie is giving a law school lecture. A real panel of judges would be offended -- they know about laws, lawyering and judging. But not this panel. They haven't the first bloody clue. They don't know about evidence. They don't really care. For a day, they've been hearing from a lay witness with no expertise or standing. And they've let it run.

McConchie is telling them how real courts deal with expert evidence. They don't just let some law student submit a "textbook" on "Islamophobia" and say, "read this" it means "we win". They bring a real expert, who will discuss its credibility, authority, etc.

Here's my best effort at a direct quote from McConchie, after telling the tribunal how real courts work: that's "how at least in my experience and my understanding of the law... I accept this tribunal is not bound by the same rules as a regular court, but there are boundaries, there's a minimal requirement to prove the authority of the document that's submitted to the tribunal that is represented to be some sort of academic study, and that would ordinarily be done through an expert witness, and not a lay witness who happens to have seen it."

That's how a polite man tells a tribunal they don't know what the hell they're doing.

Needless to say, not one of the Troika is paying much attention to him, and panellist Tonie Beharrell has her eyes closed for much of it.