Gao Yunxiang walked out of court. (reporter / photo by the newspaper)
Gao Yunxiang`s alleged sexual invasion case was reopened in the Sydney Central District Court today. The Sydney Central District Court rejected the plea to subpoena a cross-examination of a woman victim in Gao Yunxiang`s case (hereinafter referred to as "A"), citing clause 93 by defence lawyers. In response, Gao said it would take time to consider whether to file a review application with (Supreme Court), the new state high court, and the results will be available by next Friday.
On Friday, after several court sessions, defense counsel Cohen (John Korn) filed a clause 93 application, pointing to contradictions in A`s testimony and surveillance, hoping to summon A to testify.
In general, the sexual invasion case does not need to stand as a witness at the primary hearing stage unless the judge determines that the circumstances are exceptional. So as soon as the court opened today, the judge announced that the application had been rejected and read out the ruling in the next 20 minutes. After reading out, defence counsel Cohen said he needed time to consider whether to file a further application for reconsideration with the new state high court.
The trial lasted half an hour, during which time Gao Yunxiang sat facing the judge. After aides informed of the verdict, Gao Yunxiang`s face was disappointed.
Cohen told the court on Friday that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in A`s four statements about the night, and that A`s testimony ran counter to what had been recorded on CCTV surveillance footage. He claims that in her first testimony to the police on 27 March, A claimed that no sexual behavior; had occurred in the hotel room, but in the third testimony made on 28 March, she changed her mouth to saying that she was forced to conduct sexual behavior. The night`s CCTV surveillance video showed A and Wang acting intimately and showing no intention in front of the hotel.
The judge ruled that the inconsistency between the two testimonies before and after A stemmed from A`s own ideological struggle. In the judgment, the judge referred to the Thompson case at least five times, which, as a reference case, played a crucial role in the outcome of the ruling.
Gao Yunxiang a black suit to answer the news. (reporter / photo by the newspaper)
Australian lawyer Tang Lin said the application for victims to appear in the new state had never been successful in the first five years. In this case, once A appears in court and cross-testifies with Gao Yunxiang, this is equivalent to second injury to A.
Tang Lin also said that the inconsistency of A`s testimony in the case was not sufficient to constitute a "special case" to summon A.
According to the judge, if Gao Yunxiang chooses to file a reconsideration with the New State High Court next week, a further round of rulings will be held on whether or not to summon the A application. If the High Court supports the application, the case will enter the pre-trial stage and the prosecution and defence will cross-examine the witness and A.
If Gao Yunxiang does not apply to his superiors for reconsideration, or if the High Court confirms the original sentence after reconsideration, the pre-trial will not take place, and the trial will be transferred by the District Court to the District Court, where a 12-member jury will be formed in six to eight months` time. Be tried by jury.
It is understood that prosecutors have also filed seven new charges against Gao Yunxiang, replacing two earlier charges, but have not yet entered a formal trial on procedural issues. The charges are understood to be two counts of serious obscene and five counts of serious sexual invasion crimes in connection with the alleged deprivation of liberty of the woman.
In addition, at the same time today, Wang Jing (Jing Wang) also appeared in another court in Sydney Central District Court, facing a total of 13 charges.
