Golf clubs (spoilers!)

I've heard that this is supposed to be a show that is supposed to fairly realistic about court procedure, but it seemed to me that many of the examinations and cross-examinations are pretty loose and conversational and beside the point. In the show, every once in a while one or another of the barristers is cautioned by the judge, but they seem to get away with stuff that I wouldn't think would normally be allowed. But I don't claim any personal experience in these matters, so maybe the show is realistic in this respect.

However, more seriously: In Season 1's last episode (#3 or #6, depending on how you count), Martha pulls a rabbit out of her hat by cross-examining Mrs. Judge about a golf club. She is discussing matters and clues never introduced in evidence. I would have thought that the proper procedure would have been to:
--Apologize (or apologise, I guess, since this is a British show) for introducing a witness and evidence late in the proceedings;
--Introduce her forensic guy and establish his credentials;
--Have him explain just how he got access to the golf club and Mrs. Judge's fingerprints; and
--Report what he found on the golf club and what conclusions he draws from it.

Then, and only then, should she be able to question Mrs. Judge about this. (Similarly, we don't see that the webcam recording (CD? MP3?) is introduced into evidence, or hear why the transcript doesn't include the fateful words.)