(Criminal Case Simulations through legal role-playing is is my volunteering task to assist with 2022 South Australia Bar Readers’ Course. To know more about SA Bar Readers’ Course, you are welcome to check out their website: Link)

Day 1 – 3 Dec 2022 / Elliott Johnston Chambers

(Image source: Elliott Johnston Chambers, Copyright of this image belongs to Elliott Johnston Chambers)

Attending the briefing session hosted by Grant Algie QC at Elliott Johnston Chambers this morning was an interesting experience. Elliott Johnston Chambers is certainly a classic environment for legal discussions. The session focused on assisting with the Criminal Trial component of the 2022 SA Bar Readers’ course (for new Barristers) by acting as the witness in a hypothetical criminal case.

This is a great opportunity for law students to participate in criminal trial advocacy as volunteers. The trial exercise will take place on Monday, 5 December, and Wednesday, 7 December, in the Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 3 Angas Street, Adelaide, SA.

I will play the accused and the other two Defence witnesses during both Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination. ‘’Judges’’ will review each barrister’s performance accordingly.  

** Here is the link to the layout of a typical court in case you are curious about this.

Day 2 – 5 Dec 2022 / Commonwealth Law Courts Building

The full program usually runs from 9 am to 4:45 pm each day. On Day 2, I stayed in courtroom 7 to watch the entire process in the morning until the barristers started to question us lay witnesses in the afternoon. The major sessions include:

  • Opening Addresses by Advocates
    • After each round of opening addresses by both prosecution and defence counsel, His Honour Grant Algie QC leaves his bench and sits next to the counsel, he may ask them why they said certain things and then delivers a more effective opening statement as an example.
  • Principal Lay Witness to give evidence to Barristers in ”proofing”
    • ‘’Proofing’’ can be conducted casually, like chatting in the nearby café, where the barristers might privately ask questions about various details in the witness’s statement. Since this is an exercise, we are allowed to make up some additional details as long as they are consistent with the original statements.
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of the applicant (the plaintiff)
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of the respondent (the defendant)
    • When the court orders a witness to sit in the witness box for questioning by both prosecution and defence counsel in a criminal trial, something interesting happens. In the game of discovering the truth, barristers in the cross-examination may ‘’frame’’ a question to favour their client’s position, with a biased answer already embedded in the question. A barrister in cross-examination will find a way to ‘’attack’’ a witness as long as a logical loophole is found. This can be both spontaneous and planned.
  • Plenary Discussion on Expert Witness
    • The SA Bar invited some experts to deliver a speech on how to examine an expert witness. In this hypothetical criminal case, two expert witnesses will attend the moot court: a psychiatrist Dr. Stern and a psychologist Dr. Pink (fictional names).
Takeaway

Opening addresses are not for argument – The defence counsel usually cannot go too far in defending their client at this stage. A more appropriate opening address presents the facts to the jury.

Extended Reading (Sunny’s List)
Day 3 – 6 Dec 2022 / Commonwealth Law Courts Building

On Day 3, I stayed in courtroom 7 in the morning to watch the Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Dr. Pink (psychologist). In the afternoon, I moved to courtroom 8 to learn about the examination of Dr. Stern (psychiatrist). The major sessions included:

  • Plenary Discussion
  • Conferences – Expert Witnesses
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Dr Pink
  • Plenary Discussion – Documents & Prior Inconsistent Statements
    • For inconsistent statement, it’s important to identify the occasion.
    • When asking some preliminary question, the better rhetoric employed by the barristers is to ”invite the witness to refresh the memory”, instead of just ”referring to xxx page”.
    • Determining what kind of documents can be admitted as evidence is critical.
  • Lunch Break
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Dr Stern
  • Plenary Discussion – The Closing Address / Reflections
Takeaway
  • Law can be creative – On Day 3, I had a quick chat with an energetic and passionate Barrister about her work. Her perspective as a defence counsel was unique during the cross-examination of the expert witness. She explained that she likes to think outside the box because, before becoming a lawyer, she wanted to be an artist. ‘’Law requires logic thinking, but for some areas, such as employment law, there is room for creativity because a scenario that was illegal 50 years ago might be legal today.’’ She said. Indeed, I couldn’t agree more. My personal observation is that Law also needs ‘’imagination’’, or in the legal field, ‘’imagination’’ is better replaced by ‘’assumption’’. When examining a scenario, how would you ‘’connect the dots’’?
Extended Reading (Sunny’s List)
  • “Evidence law in Australia” (Link)
  • “Rules of evidence’’ (Link)
  • “What are the rules of evidence?” (Link) (different jurisdiction)
Day 4 – 7 Dec 2022 / Commonwealth Law Courts Building

On the morning on Day 4, I stayed in courtroom 9 to give evidence as one of the second lay witnesses for the defense. After the lunch break, I moved between different courtrooms to appreciate the various closing addresses by the barristers. Each barrister has their very own style of delivering closing statements. Similar sessions include:

  • Conferences – Second Lay Witnesses
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Second Lay Witnesses / Prosecution
  • Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Second Lay Witnesses / Defense
    • It’s interesting that witnesses, including myself, might become quite defensive and start to argue with the barrister during the cross-examination. In fact, for most leading questions, the straightforward answer is YES or NO.
  • Lunch Break
  • Closing Addresses by Advocates
Takeaway
  • Asking leading questions is a way to control the narrative of the witness. In contrast, posing open-ended questions gives the witness (or the defendant) every opportunity to persuade the jury that there is nothing wrong on their side. Barristers employ these different techniques to question a witness or a witness whose position is opposite, respectively.
Extended Reading (Sunny’s List)
  • “Is There a Difference Between Leading Questions and Open-Ended Questions at Trial?” (Link)
Final Note

From the perspective of a law student, four days of sessions provide real teaching and learning.

Reading 77 pages of a hypothetical criminal case is much like reading Agatha Christie’s detective fiction. However, the ‘’role-playing’’ creates an engaging environment for everyone to dig for the truth buried in the plausible details.

The rationale behind such ‘’role-playing’’ teaching is that both parties (prosecution and defense) can maximize the benefits by engaging in every aspect of litigation. The ‘’adversary simulation’’ model naturally fits into the legal setting and legal education. I personally think, while text-based teaching is necessary to lay the foundation of legal theory, it cannot achieve the same results. Ultimately, knowledgeable professionals are expected to experiment with various methods to convey knowledge and stimulate thinking.

‘’Adversary Simulation’’ is a term I borrow from Information Security or Cybersecurity, but the ‘’adversarial system’’ is indeed rooted in common law setting. Justice can be served through different approaches, and the adversarial system is certainly one of the legal topics worth exploring in depth.

In conclusion, this legal volunteering task has provided a practical understanding of courtroom procedures and valuable insight into the actual work of barristers practicing criminal prosecution and advocacy. It also consolidates my comprehension of the complex legal culture in our democratic society.

(** For a quick understanding of ‘’adversarial system’’, see wiki article here)

(END)