Freeman-Quay denies the allegation that he delivered the blow.
The case centres largely on CCTV footage captured of the incident,http://www.ausblow.com.au/rss.php?85238.html, and whether it shows Freeman-Quay as the man who punched Mr Pridham.
The accused,http://www.ausblow.com.au/settings.php?departments-accessories-ac-milan-optic-scarf.html, represented by barrister Ken Archer,http://neopianroyalty.com/wp-content.php?2%25C3%25A8me-maillot-Atletico-Madrid-2014-2015, argues the footage is ambiguous and unclear,http://www.hunterpowersystems.com.au/phpinfo.php?departments-accessories-drinkware-arsenal-freezer-mug.html, and that he was not the one who delivered the offending blow.
A biomechanics expert analysed the footage and arrived at the conclusion that Freeman-Quay was responsible for the punch that caused the injury.
But Mr Archer has objected to his evidence being tendered before Chief Justice Helen Murrell,http://www.the5m.com/wp-register.php?mentions-legales, and much of Monday was spent arguing about its admissibility.
The judge-alone trial continues before the ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday,http://www.laverdadapostolica.com/feed.php?20140616/hyv-228-laatu-jalkapallo-pelipaidat-world-cup-italia, when the admissibility issue is likely to be resolved.相关的主题文章：