Charles, I have only followed this case very casually and so I dont have answers to your questions that I would stand by. That said, these are the facts(with my opinions) as far as I understand them. I gladly stand corrected in case I am wrong in any of the points or my opinions.
1/ brothers are MSK, 25, and MAK, 23 There will be another reason for the supression of names. I would guess it is because it will disclose their ancestory/religion and thus be deemed predudicial to their case. Someone more knowledgeable of the case might have a more correct or better explanation.
2/ Without too much doubt, the Australian taxpayer at some level will be paying for these appeals.
3/As far as I recall the elements of the story at the time, I believe that this is a continuation of case of two Lebanese Muslims who were targetting Non-Muslim girls.
" MSK and MAK, who represented themselves, were the first to be tried under amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, passed by the NSW government in September last year. The new law bars those charged with sexual assault, and who have no legal representation, from directly cross-examining their alleged victims."
As far as I recall, their intention to directly cross-examine the rape victims was the reason for a fast change in the law of the time.
Further article below:
Brothers begin gang rape appeal
September 6, 2004
TWO brothers who gang raped two Sydney teenagers today told an appeal court they were not granted a fair trial.
The brothers, known as MSK and MAK, were sentenced to 22 years and 16 years in jail respectively, for the gang rape of two girls at a home in Ashfield on July 28, 2002. MSK, 25, and MAK, 23, today began appealing their convictions in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.
MSK told the court their convictions should not stand because they were not allowed to cross examine their accusers.
"If the accused were not granted a fair trial then the verdicts should not stand, Your Honour," MSK told the court.
MSK and MAK, who represented themselves, were the first to be tried under amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, passed by the NSW government in September last year.
The new law bars those charged with sexual assault, and who have no legal representation, from directly cross-examining their alleged victims.
Today, MSK told the appeal court the NSW Parliament's amendments were inappropriate.
"Parliament has no power to interfere in the ... rights of anyone in NSW," he said.
He also said the measures put in place to allow them to ask questions of their accusers, including having to write down questions for someone else to ask the girls, were "impractical and unworkable".
"Therefore the evidence was completely untested" before the jury, he said.
