Nel: I don't think there is anything in here.
Nel: My lady to say that somebody say so, and what friends over here say is far fetched. This should not be allowed.
Judge: We will adjourn now for lunch until 2pm.
Judge: The defense has sought to introduce certain evidence. The basis of the objection is two fold. It is hearsay and in any event irrelevant.
Judge: Counsel for the defense has argued that it is neither hearsay or irrelevant. Before I give my ruling.
Judge: The evidence is light is in the report compiled by Prof. Derman. The evidence consists from two emails from people who have similar disabilities as the accused.
Judge: Counsel for the defense also felt that court normally accept evidence from an expert who have used sources for their report.
Judge: In the present case, the sources are two individuals that refer to their own circumstances. These circumstances cannot be irrelevant to this matter.
Judge: The judge in the matter of L. Dawn vs Landbou, quoted "If on the other hand it they attended to prove what is asserted. If what they intended to prove is relevant to the enquiry"
Judge: Defense counsel seems to have overlooked the admissible. Defense have not stated why it is relevant.
Judge: I think such an exercise would be fruitless. One cannot use the evidence to supplement the report.
Judge: My findings is that the two emails in the report by Prof. Derman are hearsay evidence and are irrelevant.
Judge: In addition, the portion of the email on page 27, that has already been read into the record be removed.
Oldwage: I refer you to paragraph 33, of your report.
WD: My lady, paragraph 33, I state that I am of the view that there is truth in the claims for victims to attack persons with disabilities.
WD: In one such incident, I was on a train with an athlete in a wheel chair, when a drunk attack happened against the disabled person.
WD: Recent analysis, copies of which are included here in. The studies show that there are higher attacks against disabled persons then that of able bodied persons.
WD: I drew your attention to this publication, on pages 31.
WD: Under the findings, I read the last three sentences.
WD: Interpretation is that adults with disabilities are at a higher risk then that of non disabled adults.
WD: Paragraph 36, a further study. Published in 2014, study found in 2012.
The court has adjourned for the day and will return at 8.30am UK time tomorrow morning.