paraphrase My client Mr Ratheba his right to fair trial was infringed. The prosecutor did not grant access to docket to my client which was against the law. The access to that docket would have helped my client to prepare for the trial. He would have had an idea of how the trial was going to happen . My client did not even get a chance to challenge evidence because the court asked him if he has meaningful questions which resulted to him being intimidated. If my client would have been give the access to the document he would not have been intimidated to ask questions to the medical doctor.
My client, Mr. Ratheba, was denied his right to a fair trial. The prosecutor unlawfully denied my client access to the docket, which would have allowed him to adequately prepare for the trial. By having access to this information, my client could have been better informed about the proceedings and better understood how the trial was going to unfold. Additionally, my client was not given an opportunity to challenge the evidence presented against him. The court intimidated him by asking if he had any meaningful questions, thus preventing him from effectively addressing the evidence. If my client had been granted access to the document, he would not have been intimidated and would have been able to ask the medical doctor important questions.
Mr. Ratheba, my client, was denied a fair trial as his right was violated when the prosecutor refused to provide him with access to the docket, which is considered unlawful. This denial of access hindered my client's preparation for the trial, as having the docket would have allowed him to understand how the trial proceedings would unfold. Additionally, my client was unable to question the evidence presented against him, as the court intimidated him by asking if he had any meaningful questions. If my client had been granted access to the document, he would not have felt intimidated to challenge the medical doctor's testimony.
