I would like to inform you that the issue you asked me to serve with advice is rather complicated. It can be explained by the fact that a physical person and organisations are involved in the process so I would like to ask you to separate a group of facts, which are related to McBrand allegations from those, which are issued by TDL.
To start with, it is necessary to linger upon the potential burdens of proof for Mrs. McBrand. In fact, any personal statement, which is applied to the case, is supposed to be verified by solicitors in order to identify contextual validity. It is one of the main peculiarities of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which is referred to any individual evidence or any other factual statement regarding a particular case. In such a way, I need to emphasise that Mrs. McBrand is obliged to legally verify any proof of her being infected by APL beer. As a consequence, it is to be said that evidence of her telephone conversation with her mother concerning being poisoned by Carey’s beer is rather weak. Though, it is needless to say that this evidence disregards Mr. Grain’s denial. Still, there is no distinct proof that Mrs. McBrand has been infected with this beer. However, it is also worth saying that being poisoned with the beer sounds quite natural due to the following fact. As stated by Mrs. McBrand has, she had eaten only a fruit salad before she had the beer. Thus, it is obvious that an average alcohol poisoning might have occurred. Taking these points into account, I should admit that Mrs. McBrand is expected to provide meaningful evidence of being poisoned because of poor quality of the beer, but not her health conditions. In my opinion, it is not a very complicated analytical process from the perspective of healthcare while it will solve a considerable set of problems concerning the case.
In contrast, it should be noted that the telephone conversation can be regarded as proof that Mrs. McBrand really purchased APL beer. However, as it has been mentioned before, it evidence is not strong enough.
Speaking about SA Health Department notifications regarding the case, it is needless to say that certain irrelevancies are obviously seen. To be more specific, Mrs. McBrand denied that she had consumed something else that day, except a fruit salad and the beer. Still, the related notification is a legally verified document, which cannot be objected in the court. Though, according to the Commonwealth Act, this document can be checked for validity one more time.
What is more, I would like to highlight a need to involve “Amazin’ Chicken Burrito, Adelaide” at least to testify in court in this case. In other words, it is very important to reveal whether Mrs. McBrand purchased any take-away food that day. However, I would recommend not to exclude the existence of some other individual, called “Youth” Again, who can identify Mrs. McBrand and verify that she purchased a burrito at a take-away van. It is essential because this aspect will influence the procedure of analysis of other factors. In addition, I want to advise you to reanalyse the first SA Health Department notification regarding the beer poisoning: it may include some facts, which can be used to prove the existence of the second notification. Eventually, it is a crucial point because we may deal with an attempt of accusing a company for the sake of personal ambitions.
Hence, speaking about evidence provided by SA Health Department in favour of APL, it should be admitted that the basic statement of such positioning is implied in the fact that beer is an alcoholic beverage so excessive consumption can lead to worsening of a person`s health condition. In other words, the notification of SA Health Department is supposed to be reviewed in order to reveal the facts, which reflect that Mrs. McBrand felt ill because of consumption of an alcoholic drink. In other words, the beer was normal regarding its quality while Mrs. McBrand was not “fit” enough to drink a bottle of beer. Thus, I would like to say that it is only one assumption, which can be referred to APL.
With regard to purposes of this claim, it is worth saying that it will prove or disprove the assumptions that Mrs. McBrand had eaten only a fruit salad before she had beer and had not purchased any chicken burrito that day. Doubtless, such purposes are comparatively vague because they need sufficient evidence from the side of SA Health Department as a legally authorized body, which is capable of confirmation of any of the outlined versions. Therefore, I would like to advise you to make sure that all related documents are eligible for one more verification and potential reconsideration of certain facts, which are extracted from these documents. At this point, we just need to prove the credibility of all verified notifications and other related documentation. As a result, the legally validated information is the most powerful method to overrule the opponent. However, I need to warn you that in the history of the Commonwealth Court numerous cases have been detected when defendant appeared to act illegally in other terms even though all legal requirements were met.
Concerning the involvement of TDL and especially Veronica Jurm, I would like to say that it is one more important factor concerning the case of Mrs. McBrand. However, it is necessary to pay additional attention to the TDL activity regarding the quality of APL beer.
In fact, evidence obviously proves that TDL does not have to be involved in the process. Actually, Mr. Grain personally stated that the rest of the customers had no complaints concerning their health condition after consumption of beer. What is more, SA Health Department can provide legally validated evidence of no notifications of poisoning related to APL beer consumption, except the statement of Mrs. McBrand. Even more, the symptoms of this poisoning are serious enough to consult a health professional. Taking these points into consideration, it is possible to say that the yeast used for APL beer was normal. As a consequence, the involvement of TDL and Veronica Jurm has to be denied.
Conversely, I would not recommend to exclude these persons from the list of potential suspects. As it has been proved that Veronica Jurm was involved in a wide range of conspiracies, you can ask TDL for the related standardisation papers, which prove the credibility of their products. In case these documents are not provided, there is a possibility that Veronica Jurm’s involvement may emerge. By the same token, the previous denials of Mrs. Jurm were not successful. In consequence, I would advise to be aware of the cases, to which I have referred before in this letter. Probably, we are dealing with a similar attempt to deceive the Commonwealth Law. Besides, I need to emphasise the fact that this case is not related to the case of Mrs. McBrand.
In contrast, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that evidence provided by Veronica Jurm can be considered as insufficient. First of all, it can be explained by the lack of proves, which the witness has demonstrated at the previous trial. Again, I want to remind that just a statement of the potentially involved individual cannot be regarded as strong evidence in accordance with the Commonwealth Act, according to which a legally verified proof is the most convincing factor regarding a particular case. In a like manner, Mr. Grain might have been mistaken about the yeast quality at the moment of his conversation with Mrs. Jurm at the “Micro-Brewers Australia”. Later the yeast could appear to be of poor quality. Though, Mr. Grain is quite an experienced person within his sphere, but the possibility of human error is still applicable to the case. Therefore, I should say that there is a sound reason for the denial of evidence admission provided by Veronica Jurm.
To the broadest extent, it is worth mentioning that the reputation of Mrs. Jurm leaves much to be desired. As I have noted in this letter before, Veronica Jurm is known to be involved in numerous conspiracies regarding yeast trading. Hence, you may ask Mr. Grain to provide you with all available information concerning TDL and the personality of Veronica Jurm. In such a way I highly recommend you to insist on the fact that evidence provided by Veronica Jurm is not admissible until she will provide the trial with the legally validated documentation, which proves that quality of the yeast has been satisfactory. Again, access to this documentation will enable us to understand whether evidence provided by Mrs. Jurm is strong enough to be included in the proceedings.
Furthermore, it is worth saying that cross-examination involving APL counsel will not lead to any effective outcomes. To be more precise, the case is quite specific. As a consequence, documentary evidence is the strongest one not only because of the Commonwealth Act but also because of a relative weakness of personal statements. In general, any personal statement is expected to be supported by a corresponding legal document. In case a cross examination is conducted, the proceedings will be complicated with obviously redundant matching of the witnesses’ statements. On the contrary, I would advise to arrange the cross-examination in combination with the presentation of documentation. In such a way, the witnesses will be able to provide evidence in a more distinct way. Moreover, as a result of this procedure these cases can be solved in a shorter period of time.
Therefore, I would like to say that the testimony of Zen Strong is quite appropriate in this case. Despite all achievements and meaningful experience, I need to emphasise evidence provided by a 10-paged CV, which has been demonstrated in detail.
However, you still can request this CV and verify it without asking the court of law. To be more exact, you will be expected to appeal to the Commonwealth Act, according to which documentation has to be validated even though it has been admitted to be presented without objections. In case you confirm the credibility of this CV and other documentation, provided by Mrs. Strong, it is doubtless that evidence will be totally admissible. In addition, I would recommend that the same procedure is done with translations and SA Water papers in order to exclude any possible case of forgery. Unfortunately, this case is hard to win because evidence of presented documentation is stronger than personal statements of Mr. Grain. Still, I would advise to conduct your own analysis of the yeast quality and water hardness. It can be explained by the fact that results of TDL analysis may appear to be false due to numerous reasons, which we can be regarded as assumptions only.
Moreover, you still have the opportunity to emphasise the reputation of Veronica Jurm, who has failed to provide valid evidence at the previous trial. However, I need to warn you that I cannot guarantee that this action will definitely lead to success in this case.
Otherwise, the proceedings will be prolonged without any positive result for us. Hence, I would advise to use this advice in order to appeal to the Federal Court of Law, which will require more meaningful evidence from Mrs. Strong.
To be more precise, evidence provided by Zen Strong is recommended not to be used in the Federal Court of Law. First of all, it can be explained by the fact that the Federal Law requires higher standards of evidence presentation. However, the CV and prizes show the sufficient experience of Mrs. Strong. As a consequence, the Federal Court of Law will require some proof of Zen Strong’s right to make official judgements. Mrs. Strong is doubtlessly an experienced person within the sphere of her activity, but she does not possess any legally verified evidence of her right to estimate the quality of the yeast and water hardness. What is more, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Mrs. Strong has provided the court with water hardness standards. Actually, this documentation was supposed to be presented by TDL representatives personally. As a result, you can ask for objection in the Federal Court of Law because Zen Strong is not a person involved in the process and does not have any official right to estimate the quality of TDL products. In such a way, evidence provided by Zen Strong in the Federal Court of Law will be rejected, and the opponent will need to find some new evidence in order to go on with legal proceedings. In general, I would recommend to insist on these facts at further trials and try to appeal to the Federal Court of Law. All in all, these are all recommendations, which you have asked me to provide regarding both cases. Hence, it is necessary to draw certain conclusions.
All in all, I want to admit that both cases are rather complicated and we cannot forecast any distinct outcomes. By the same token, I need to emphasise that you do not need to relate these cases to each other. In other words, we are having two different issues, which can be solved separately. Therefore, I should say that Mrs. McBrand will be supposed to provide legally validated proof of all evidence provided by her. Otherwise, she may be potentially accused of libelling APL. Subsequently, the notifications of SA Health Department can be used in favour of the defendant because the possibility of average alcohol poisoning is utterly obvious. Thus, an extra analysis has to be made. In a similar way evidence provided by Veronica Jurm has to be supported with legally validated documentation, which is regarded as the strongest evidence by the Commonwealth Act. As for evidence provided by Mrs. Strong, I need to say that it is rather convincing in terms of the Commonwealth Court while regarding the Federal Court of Law, we have a very high possibility to ask for objection.
I am looking forward to hear about your success at the further trials.
The Best Barrister.