Members of the jury , you are required by law , in the administration of jurisprudence to deliberate on this case, with parity and prudence . In this case , involving the Commonwealth vs Olinda and Tytan ; their fates are in your capable hands.
Listen closely to the legal practitioners as they make their closing remarks.
Olinda’s legal Practitioner:
Members of the jury , your honor and the citizens of the Commonwealth, evidently my client , Olinda Chapel is a victim of love . In Uberrima fides ( utmost good faith) , my Client entered into a holy matrimony with Tytan . Furthermore, my client financially sponsored Tytan to come to the UK. He was /is still as broke as a mouse. My client invested emotionally and financially into this marriage. Clearly, Tytan used my client as a conduit pipe to enter UK and gain citizenship . While he was in Zimbabwe he only had one song - Mukoko. He had hidden agenda ab initio ( from the beginning). Criminal culpability rests on Tytan for mendaciously attempting to manipulate a loving woman and the entirety of the UK immigration system . This is a felonious act punishable with serious time in jail . There is a lot at stake here. What precedence are we setting if we don’t punish such felonious act ?
Tytan’s Legal Practitioner:
Members of the jury , your honor, this notion that my client , Tytan was in this marriage for papers is at a minimum mischievous and at a maximum tantamount to libel. Such defamation of character/ character assassination is criminal in nature . How did the defense attorney of Olinda manage to qualify and or quantify my client’s authenticity? What scientific methodology did they administer to ascertain that my client did not love his wife when he entered into this marriage ? The legal onus is theirs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that my client was not authentic . The truth of the matter is that my client , Tytan entered this marriage in utmost good faith . He loved his wife and daughter unconditionally. Regrettably, Olinda took advantage of her financial mightiness and subjected my client to emotional, psychological torture. In fact , there are occurrences of even physical abuse . My client is on therapy because of this torture. He is the victim not the offender. He is an endangered species that is protected by the UK laws and more importantly International law . Consequently, he must be naturalized as a British citizen.
Members of the jury, who erred in this matter ..