Bar Mock Trial report
On Saturday morning a group of 14 students from years 9, 10, 11 and 13 met at Snaresbrook Crown
Court for the London Heat of the national Bar Mock Trial competition. This was the second time All
Saints had competed in this competition, which is aimed at pupils in years 10 to 13 in state schools.
The competition involved two cases: R v Lewis, where the defendant was accused of robbery after a
young person was knocked down and had their wallet stolen early on New Year’s Day; and R v
Braza, where the defendant was accused of theft and obtaining services dishonestly after they
allegedly stole an expensive coffee cup from a café and left without paying for their breakfast. The
pupils took on the roles of barristers, witnesses and court officials.
The pupils playing the part of barristers have the biggest roles in the competition. In a case, each
barrister has to deliver a speech, carry out an examination-in-chief of a witness and a cross
examination of a different witness. The way I prepare the teams, each barrister has to prepare the
prosecution and the defence of the case, so that workload doubles. The two barristers for the case of
Lewis were Chloe and Amy in year 13. All but one of the members of the All Saints team had
competed in the Magistrates’ Court Mock Trial competition in previous years, however, this was the
fourth time Amy and Chloe had performed as barristers. Therefore, rather than being nervous, they
were both looking forward to the first trial.
In the first case we were defending Lewis. We were up against Walthamstow Academy. The case of
Lewis hinged on the reliability of the identification of the attacker by the victim. The attack happened
in the early hours of News Year’s Day and the victim had had rather a lot to drink. They claimed they
were sober as judge but the evidence suggested they were drunk as a skunk. Although the defendant
was known to the victim, there were no other witnesses to the attack and it happened very quickly.
Therefore, the persuasiveness of the witnesses was key. Armel in year 10 was playing the role of the
defendant, Morgan Lewis. He admitted to having a minor altercation with Toni Williams, the victim, in
the nightclub on New Year’s Eve, which resulted in Morgan being ejected from the club. However, he
denied having robbed Toni, instead claiming he met his friend outside the nightclub and walked to the
bus stop together. Natatim in year 11 was playing the role of the friend, Robin Wall. She told the court
that Morgan was with her the whole time after leaving the club and had not seen nor attacked the
victim. These two, together with Amy and Chloe, managed to put enough doubt in the jury’s mind that
Armel was found not guilty. The outcome of the case does not affect the scoring in the competition.
We are not told the scores on the day, but my feeling was that we edged this round. The cross
examination of the prosecution witnesses by Amy and Chloe was significantly better that the other
team’s in an otherwise evenly matched contest.
In the second case we were prosecuting Braza against Greenford High School. This was a much
more complicated case. The defendant had had breakfast in a café and left to catch her train. She
claimed to have been preoccupied with work that morning so could not remember if she had left £10
for the breakfast, but thought she had. The owner of the café claimed that the defendant had not left
any money and that she knew the breakfast cost more than £10 anyway. In addition, the owner
accused the defendant of stealing one of the expensive Turkish coffee cups used in the café. The way
the cases are written there is always plenty of doubt in the facts. To be guilty of either of these
offences it has to be shown that the defendant acted intentionally. Therefore, if the defendant had
merely forgotten to pay, or had only realised they had insufficient funds when they came to pay, the
defendant would be not guilty. Furthermore, there was little evidence that a coffee cup was missing,
let alone that the defendant had taken it. Therefore, the prosecution had the harder job presenting a
coherent case. Nevertheless, our prosecution team was much better prepared than the opposition
and it was a rather one-sided affair. Our two barristers, Simi and Tolu in year 10, did their best with
the limited evidence available and the judge complimented our team at the end for how well we
structured our case. Our two witnesses, Bartek in year 11 and Helen in year 9, played the parts of the
café owner and the arresting police officer respectively. Neither of them saw the defendant pay,
however, neither of them saw her take the coffee cup and nor was it found in her possession after her
arrest. Surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of obtaining services dishonestly
because they decided that the defendant knew the breakfast cost more than £10 and she intentionally
and dishonestly failed to pay the full amount. In summing up the judge gave special mention to
Bartek, whom she described as ‘fabulous’, and Simi, whose closing speech was the equal of a real
junior counsel.
The final case, in which we were prosecuting Lewis against Rivers Academy, was the highlight of the
day. What made this trial so enjoyable was the quality of the cross examination by both sets of
barristers. The cases are written in such a way that there is no clear version of events and witnesses
contradict one another in their statements. Therefore, the trial rests on who is move convincing in their
performance. Both sets of barristers focused on these contradictions and witnesses from both schools
had to think on their feet and respond to incisive, relentless questioning. Playing the part of the victim
was Roni in year 11. She had the difficult task of persuading the court that her identification of her
attacker was reliable, despite her having had a ‘massive night out’. Michael in year 13, having
stepped in at the last minute and in his debut in mock trial competitions, played the part of Ronny
Peters, the victim’s friend. He was unflappable in the witness box and told the court how he heard
Morgan Lewis vow revenge on the victim whilst being ejected from the club. In the end, despite the
defendant tripping up under cross examination by Chloe and admitting to have been waiting for the
victim to leave the club and following her to the taxi rank, the jury returned a not guilty verdict because
of the unreliability of eye-witness testimony, especially when that witness has had 10 shots of tequila
and numerous beers. How the judge scored this bruising encounter was not announced, and I
suspect it was even tighter than the first case.
Fourteen schools were competing on Saturday and only one could progress through to the national
final. Individual scores were not announced, so we don’t know how close we came but, unfortunately,
we did not come top. However, the pupils could have performed little better and I was very proud of
them. Also involved in the day were Angel in year 9 and Grace in year 11. They played the roles of
court officials and both stepped in late in the day after others had dropped out. A special mention has
to be made of Zoe and Martynas in year 11 who, despite preparing for months alongside the rest of
the team, did not get to perform because of the way the day is organised.