prof talat:

"As an officer of the court, the Public Prosecutor has a duty to assist the accused person. This means that if the defence asks the police to serve a subpoena on a witness to compel him to come to court, they must assist the defence. If the Deputy Public Prosecutor comes across facts that are favourable to the accused person, he must make them known to the defence."

I already knew this, from my research for my assignment, and I also knew that the Public Prosecutor is supposed to be an "impartial court officer", whose duty is first and foremost to ensure justice is done, and not merely to secure a conviction.

As someone rightly pointed out, it's impossible to expect so much of a "mere mortal" prosecutor.

So when I asked this question after Prof Talat said what he said, I'd already guessed the answer to it:

"Prof, do they actually do this in practice?"

What I didn't expect was perhaps the split-second "No."

That's why I rolled my eyes. 

If it had been 4 seconds before "No", I may have just nodded knowingly.

To not resign ourselves to a system that has so little to offer.

Now that is something.