Gherkin Street

By Milton Montgomery:

Your honour, we have listened to the Prosecution’s case against my client and I would like now to contest their allegations that he is a terrorist.

Now the Defence concedes that my client is indeed “not white” as the charges against him state. This however is not yet a crime, notwithstanding the Government’s Bill before the Senate.

Moreover we are prepared to accept that my client has a “funny name” and comes from “one of those countries that likes curries and other such un-Australian foods”. Again, we submit that the aforementioned Bill has not yet been approved.

Now as to the Prosecution’s claims that my client’s wife wears a hijab, we reiterate that the cloth is no-more than a hankie and that it is worn so because she has been suffering a terrible head-cold. Since puberty.

The Prosecution has also produced phone records showing a number of phone calls my client to India, to people the Prosecution maintains are “nothing more than evil, sadistic human beings trying to inflict pain on as many Australians as possible”. We do not deny any of this evidence but would like to point out that it is not against the law to speak to a Call Centre.

As to the more serious allegations, I'm sure you will remember the grandstanding display whereby the Prosecution produced a plastic bag containing some liquid and what appeared to be a fingernail which they went on to claim was all that remains of my client after his alleged suicide attack.

The Prosecution maintains that my client was identified by dental records yet they were unable to produce a single tooth. Well, a single tooth belonging to my client.

Moreover the dental records referred to by the Prosecution were from a dentist that only claimed to see seven patients last year, despite owning two houses and seventeen cars. I ask you, can a man who has two houses be trusted? What’s more, all the invoices issued by this dentist were to clients with such dubious names as “New Porsche” and “Yacht Payment”.

Notwithstanding this, you can clearly see sitting beside me a man that fits the definition that fits the Accused, to wit, “a man with a towel on his head”.

Now the Defence has alleged that it is unclear whether this man is the Accused because, as they said, “he could be any one of a thousand taxi drivers in Sydney”.

I ask you, isn’t that the point?

I also ask you, why would any man sit in the place of another accused of being a Terrorist? Even if it does appear that he has a large amount of cash in his top pocket and he keeps shouting out, “Will you hurry up, the meter is still running you know!” He doesn’t look comfortable and relaxed at all does he?

Now I know that even though you are all enjoying the sound of my voice, we really must conclude before the Department of Immigration comes to take my client away. Not to mention those gents from the RSPCA who are keen to remove all the kangaroos from this courtroom.

To conclude Your Honour, I would just like to say this about my client, may he rest in peace. Um, could you just ignore that last bit? Even if he is guilty of blowing himself up and killing thousands of others, may I remind you that he is not being accused of murder but terrorism?

May I also remind you that the man who blew himself up, my client or not, did so inside a bank?

May I also remind you that for several days afterwards, people partied long and hard in the street?

May I also remind you that the share price of the bank attacked went up?

I ask you Your Honour, if this man is indeed the Accused, is he really a terrorist?

The Defence rests.