The inquest into the death of Christie Marceau has heard how documents deemed crucial by police to stop her attacker being bailed were effectively dismissed by a District Court judge.
The prosecutor who attended the bail hearing said the judge "was not interested" and gave her no opportunity to vocalise the importance of the documents.
Christie, 18, was stabbed to death by Akshay Chand at her family home on the North Shore in November 2011.
Chand was facing charges of an earlier attack on Christie, and had been released on bail 33 days before he charged into the Marceau home and killed the university student.
This week the inquest, before Coroner Katharine Greig, heard from the police prosecutors charged with handling Chand's initial charges in the North Shore District Court.
On Tuesday prosecutor Adam Pell gave evidence and said he "strongly", "firmly" and repeatedly opposed bail for Chand.
He was concerned for Christie's safety - particularly because the address Chand was seeking bail to was a two-minute walk from his victim's home.
A second prosecutor, Sergeant Rhona Stace, also gave evidence today.
She dealt with Chand's bail hearing before Judge David McNaughton on October 5, 2011.
On that day Chand was granted bail.
Terrifying last moments at hands of insane killer
Christie Marceau's last plea\
EXCLUSIVE: 'Justice for Christie' - long-awaited Marceau inquest set to start tomorrow
Christie Marceau inquest begins in Auckland with recap of her violent death
Marceau inquest: Christie's parents give evidence
Marceau inquest: police 'strongly, firmly' opposed killer's bail
Just 33 days later he killed Christie.
"In addition to the information that was available to me from the prosecution file, I had also been briefed by the previous prosecutor Adam Pell and the officer in charge of the file," Stace explained.
"My instructions were that bail had been vigorously opposed by police when the file was previously called and the police remained opposed to bail being granted."
Stace said Detective Adam Iremonger gave her additional information to bolster the opposition.
She revealed that information never made it in front of Judge McNaughton.
The information included a transcript of a DVD interview between police and Chand with his admissions about the offending against Christie flagged and a printed map showing how close his address - where he wanted to be bailed to - was to the Marceau family home.
"On my arrival at court on 5 October I attempted to pass the additional material to His Honour in advance by giving it to the registrar," Stace told the inquest.
"A short time after providing the material ... (it) was returned to me by (the registrar) and I was advised that if the material was to be relied upon, I should hand it up to His Honour once the matter was called in court.
"When the matter was subsequently called later in the day it became immediately apparent from the content and tone of His Honour's remarks that the issues had been raised by way of police opposition to bail.
"Instead, His Honour was now focused on Mr Chand's treatment and the ability of mental health services to manage him at home on strict bail conditions."
Stace revealed that a report from a forensic nurse was then presented to the court that day stating Chand "had been taking antidepressant medication for two weeks" while in custody and could be "safely managed and successfully treated in the community".
Stace said following that she was "not given any opportunity to outline the police position on bail" during the bail hearing.
"Although, I knew that the court was well aware of the police opposition to bail and the reasons for that opposition.
She recalled how McNaughton, after hearing from mental health experts and Chand's lawyer, granted the youth bail.
He imposed strict conditions, including a 24 hour curfew, and Chand was banned from going to Christie's address or contacting her.
"I made a note on the prosecution file and it is my recollection that His Honour was not interested in further submissions from police," Stace said.
"Rather, he preferred strict bail conditions in conjunction with Mr Chand being under the care of the mental health services, on the basis of their reports and advice of the court.
Stace said following Chand being granted bail, she had no further involvement in the case.
Earlier today the inquest heard from Iremonger about the bail application Stace attended.
He said he had tried to make it clear that it was "imperative" Chand be kept in custody, and gave Stace the further information to strengthen the police opposition.
Prosecutor: our concerns were 'crystal clear'
Under cross examination Stace was asked why she did not push harder to discuss the new information with Judge McNaughton.
She said while the conversation was being held about the mental health issues she went through the file "from one end to the other" to see if there was anything further she could add.
There was nothing.
"It was absolutely crystal clear to the court what our concerns were," she told the inquest.
She said often police threw "everything they can" at a bail opposition - which could result in having too much information that may detract from their "salient" and most relevant points.
Stace said she did not stand up and address Judge McNaughton on the map and transcript because she was certain he already knew "clearly" what the police position on Chand was.
She said the opposition to bail form, first presented to court at Chand's first appearnace, was "very succinct" and to the point.
"It made it very clear what the issues were," she said.
The only time she would generally speak further to a police opposition was if a judge or defence lawyer questioned the "truth of what we had to say and need convincing".
"It was very clear that that was not an issue," Stace said.
"The court... was well aware of the grounds for the opposition... it (the map and transcript) simply wasn't relevant.
Marceau family lawyer Nikki Pender pushed Stace further asking why she did not try harder to make Judge McNaughton aware of the new information.
She said by the time she became involved with the file "it had been clear for some time in ongoing discussions" what the police position was.
"It had been made abundantly clear to the court on a number of occasions that our concerns were proximity and admissions made (by Chand about the offending)," she said.
"There was no reason to doubt that the court was aware of those issues."
Pender challenged Stace and asked: "isn't the prudent course of action making sure" that the judge was aware.
She said Stace was merely "assuming" Judge McNaughton had the full information.
And she put to Stace that as an advocate for police - and Christie, the victim -
Stace was adamant she had done her job and said it would not have been appropriate to push the matter, despite being instructed to do so by the officer in charge and the earlier prosecutor.
She said it it was up to judges to ensure they had the relevant information - not the prosecutor.
"I can't be responsible for how diligent an officer of the court should be," she said.
"My understanding from the previous file comments was that the court had been made aware."
Pender suggested Stace should have asked Judge McNaughton on the day, in court, if he was aware of the police opposition to bail.
"I'd be surprised if he hadn't (read it)," Stace said.
"That would be negligent not to."
She said it was "not appropriate" to question what a judge had or had not seen.
"That would be suggesting the judge was incompetent," she said.
Counsel assisting the Coroner Hanne Janes also questioned Stace on whether she could have or should have done more to ensure the police opposition was fully understood by Judge McNaughton.
"Why were Mr Pell and Mr Iremonger so assiduous in the efforts?
"Would that not signal to you that it is something... imperative to put before the court?" she asked.
Stace was adamant she had acted appropriately and properly did her job on the day.
"Judge had alrady made his decision so no, it was not appropriate for me to reiterate," she said.
Coroner Greig asked Stace if, looking back, there was anything that could have been done differently at the October 5 2011 bail hearing.
"I have asked myself that question a lot over the last six years," she said.
"I don't think there's been a week that's gone by where I haven't had that case and Christie's death come to mind.
"In all honesty I could not see anything we could have done differently that would have changed the decision that was made on the day."