You are right, Borski got all he needed from Hart and more, I would suggest. Hart made damaging concessions and was evasive at the worst possible times IMO. He held untenable positions, in stark contrast to other evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by Collinson cross examining Hart? Hart is a defence witness. The trial is in the defence case for the company. Hart has already given his evidence in chief and Collinson re-examined him after he was cross examined by Borski. Hart is finished in the company case but will likely be recalled in the Karantzis defence case.
The party who has not called a witness is the one that is entitled to cross examine a witness. The witnesses from here on are defence witnesses and Borski will cross examine each of them. Cross examination allows for leading/closed questioning of witnesses.
Borski has been quite impressive and well across the ASIC case IMO. Collinson is past his prime, which was evidenced in his bumbling/rampling opening but improved after that.
Remember this matter is on the lower standard of proof being balance of probabilities. A far lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.
Interesting week ahead… wonder if your hero JK will come to Australia or give evidence in his own defence. Amazing how this company that he isn’t even part of the management of anymore is funding his legal fees. Wonder why Richards and Northwood aren’t around to give evidence? Surely they could help clarify those otherwise damning emails if they did? Hmmm…
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
