Barrister Work Experience Report. (1 Viewer)

[santaslayer]

Day 2, Tuesday 5th

At one point in the cross-examination, the judge had to decide whether a certain line of questioning could be used. At the point of the objection being made by the defendant, the witness was sent outside while the judge made a ruling in favour of John asking some questions. It seemed technical, but the opposing barrister eventually agreed with John and then the witness was let back in.

.

Leading questions? Just a guess...

Like lawyers aren't supposed to ask questions like "You felt like killing him so you did?"...

rather, " What did you do afterwards?"

crappy examples...but yeah..?

or was the question related to some privacy issue?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Leading questions? Just a guess...

Like lawyers aren't supposed to ask questions like "You felt like killing him so you did?"...

rather, " What did you do afterwards?"

crappy examples...but yeah..?

or was the question related to some privacy issue?

There are many issues involved in evidence -- relevance, whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value, hearsay, leading questions, unduly harrassing questions, asking for opinion rather that an account, etc. Could be anything.

But very interesting read Pwar

 

[xeuyrawp]

There are many issues involved in evidence -- relevance, whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value, hearsay, leading questions, unduly harrassing questions, asking for opinion rather that an account, etc. Could be anything.

But very interesting read Pwar

The questions in mind had nothing to do with leading the witness. It sounded more like whether the line of questioning would be relevant. Hence the witness couldn't be present as the judge and other barrister were told pretty much the exact questions. I can't really be sure, though.

Ack, I feel so stupid that they're terribly written and make no sense. I promise I'll write a better few when I get to do work exp. again with him.

I'll put up the next report tonight (I swear)

 

[Arvin Sloane]

I’ll put up the next report tonight (I swear)

I think we all look forward to it.

 

[= Jennifer =]

this week i have been at work experience it is the bestest...as a matter of fact...the instructing solicitor i am working with..has a lot to do with selbourne chambers and i am too tired to think of the other one

although i saw a group of idiots stop their car and shout at the barristers in philip st...randomness

 

[melsc]

The questions in mind had nothing to do with leading the witness. It sounded more like whether the line of questioning would be relevant. Hence the witness couldn't be present as the judge and other barrister were told pretty much the exact questions. I can't really be sure, though.

Ack, I feel so stupid that they're terribly written and make no sense. I promise I'll write a better few when I get to do work exp. again with him.

I'll put up the next report tonight (I swear)

I'd say it was an issue of relevance...coz usually something is leading or it isn't
Sounds like ur having such a cool time and learning a lot...I am jealous...its sounds much more fun than stressing about the trials

 

[Meads]

But sounds really boring.
Kind of the sort of things that my parents secretaries have to do.

your a fuckwit...i dont like it...

 

[Frigid]

i know mr bearpooh wants me to keep it comin'. so here's part II:

frigey's day at work II

aside from the filing that i do, a large amount of my time is done ECSing (Engrossing, Collating, Sending) correspondence. think of it as amending and printing stuff.

today, i went to work, ECSed for a bit.

then Jenny had a job for me, to go to Immigration like i did yesterday. DIMIA's (Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs) office is located in Lee St, near Central, close to the railway square bus-triangle. so off i went, with a filing fee to pay, and i took the liberty of lunch hour as well.

got to the DIMIA office, took a ticket (#573), realised had to wait over 100 people in the queue, ate lunch, then jigged a bit to marketcity, came back and paid the filing fee.

so today was a good day: left the office at 1:30 to file the thing, did not return post-lunch til 4. bludgied half the day away.

 

[Meads]

Day 2, Tuesday 5thImmediately after, our case started. The day before related to setting out of the arguments and straightening up of the affidavits of the witnesses, Tuesday related to the cross-examination and examination of the witnesses.

The solicitors put foward affidavits for the plaintiff and defendant was well dont they? Not just for the witnesses? I thought that the affidavit was for initial facts to be put foward for the judge to sink his teeth into, so as to save each barrister actually having to get all the facts of the case out in an examination...hence all that is left is a CROSS-examination? All the nitty gritty crap is done is the affidavits?

I'm not being rude, these are honest questions...its the understanding i got when i did work experience...i have noo right to be stuck up, im younger

Cheers

 

[melsc]

Wrong.

Leading questions ARE permitted in cross-examination.
They are NOT permitted in examination in chief.
See the Uniform Evidence Act 1995 or Aaronson or Odgers.

I think that's what he meant... You are not allowed to ask leading questions in re-examination either (or bring up issues which we not brought up in cross for that matter)...its funny when the opposing side doesn't know the rules...and you get away with it

Question: I once asked "What do you do next?"
and was told that it was a leading question and that I should have asked "What if anything, did you do next?"..but from what I understand a leading question is...is a question which suggests the answer, but i really wasn't suggesting an answer was I?

I suppose it could be suggesting that the person did do something...but if they just said "I walked into the kitchen" they obviously would have done something? The witness could have easily said "I didnt do anything" . Besides the fact that I have seen real lawyers get away with much more leading questions in real cases

I am so jealous...here I am procrastinating from studying for trials...and you guys are having so much fun

 

[xeuyrawp]

I'm sorry, this thread totally died. Mainly because the next days were all 2-hour days due to the judge having to do something before hand.

Essentially, on the last day, both counsel presented their cases. The opposing Barrister didn't really seem prepared, and couln't answer the judge's attacks on his arguments with any real conviction.

The judge at this stage was even more practical, with making sure that he totally understood the arguments.

John's address took the whole 2 hours of one day, and the opposing Barrister's took about 30 minutes, with the other hour and a half talking about what the judge has to make a ruling on.

It ended with the judge deliberating (or whatever the proper word is), and he should come back with a verdict within 3 or 4 weeks.

The solicitors put foward affidavits for the plaintiff and defendant was well dont they? Not just for the witnesses? I thought that the affidavit was for initial facts to be put foward for the judge to sink his teeth into, so as to save each barrister actually having to get all the facts of the case out in an examination...hence all that is left is a CROSS-examination? All the nitty gritty crap is done is the affidavits?

Yes, it would appear so, although the facts are still talked about.