The Little Red Book of Advocacy Second Edition
Trevor Riley
Little Red Book of Advocacy, second edition, 2016 © Law Society Northern Territory, 2016
Except as permitted under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced without prior written permission of the Law Society Northern Territory. Published by the Law Society Northern Territory, 2016 Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
ISBN: 978-0-9942878-2-3
“Funding provided by the Law Society Public Purpose Trust is gratefully acknowledged.”
Contents Foreword To Second Edition
5
Introduction 7 From the Author
8
About the Author
9
About the Cartoonist
10
Preparation is the Key
12
The Case Strategy
16
Presentation of the Case
19
The Opening
22
Evidence in Chief
25
Cross-Examination 29 Preparing for Cross-Examination
31
Some Limitations on Cross-Examination
34
Your Approach to Cross-Examination
37
Prior Inconsistent Statements
40
The Rule in Browne v Dunn 43 Cross-Examining the Expert
46
Cross-Examining through an Interpreter
49
Re-Examination – Part 1
51
Re-Examination – Part 2
53
The Unfavourable Witness
56
The Child Witness
59
The Aboriginal Witness – Part 1
62
The Aboriginal Witness – Part 2
65
Objections to Evidence
68
Unnecessary Objections to Evidence
70
Exhibits 73 Visual Aids
76
The Conduct of Counsel
78
Jury Selection
81
Relating to the Jury
84
Experts and the Jury
87
Addressing the Jury – Part 1
90
Addressing the Jury – Part 2
92
Organise the Address
94
Follow the Path of Least Resistance
96
Presenting the Address
99
The Judge’s Address to the Jury
102
Addressing the Judge
105
Questions from the Bench
107
Advocacy: the Appeal
110
Presenting the Appeal
113
The Decision to Plead
116
Preparing the Plea
118
Presenting the Plea
120
The Application for Bail
122
Interlocutory Applications
125
Written Submissions
128
The Urgent Interlocutory Injunction
130
Written Submissions After Trial
132
The Litigant in Person – Part 1
134
The Litigant in Person – Part 2
137
The Sensitive Question
139
Communication 141 Nervousness 143 Objective Counsel
145
Observing the Customs
147
Developing the Skills
150
Bibliography 152
Foreword To Second Edition The first edition of this wonderful handbook on advocacy had one major drawback: it failed to include the second half of the series of short pieces on advocacy which Justice Riley had produced for Balance in the many months following the publication of the first edition of the Little Red Book. This edition effectively doubles the material available for the assistance of the young, in particular, advocate. Balance was published more frequently, as I recall, in the early part of the century and it was necessary for the Chief Justice (as he has since become) to write his short essays on the separate issues arising for advocates on an almost monthly basis. That he enjoyed doing it, no doubt, does not release the recipients of his experience and wisdom from the great debt of gratitude owed to him. A quick glance at the Table of Contents will demonstrate the breadth of topics covered. Young and experienced practitioners will find something in these pages to assist them prepare for court and participate successfully in the litigation process. Each essay deals with a discrete topic (illustrated by Chips, with his usual wit and insight) in a straightforward manner, containing good common-sense. Quite simply, the practitioner is miles ahead of the game if he or she absorbs half of it. I wish something similar had been available in my early years. In my view, it is not just a useful work: it is an essential companion to the advocate. Before the publication of the first edition, it was obvious the whole series should be collected and published for the benefit of the Territory profession. Steps were taken to ensure advocates employed by the Northern Territory Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) received each article when it was published, and this continued to the end of the series. That is, a permanent record of the contents of this second edition has been in the hands of the ODPP practitioners (or should be), to their great advantage, for many years. By 1993, Trevor Riley QC and Graham Hiley QC had been conducting the Northern Territory University (NTU) undergraduate course on advocacy for some years. I think they discovered I had taught advocacy over a long period at the Leo Cussen Institute in Victoria. In any event, I was asked to help them that year and, at the end of the course, I was invited to take over the management of the course. Trevor promised to assist me when time permitted. I did and he did. For most of the next 20 years, I conducted the course at NTU and then Charles Darwin University with the assistance of Trevor Riley QC/J/CJ. From the time the first articles started appearing, I insisted all students had access to Balance and then to the Little Red Book; it was essential reading. I told them then, and other graduate practitioners
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
5
at different times, that it could do a young advocate no harm to have the publication on the Bar table when Riley J/CJ presided! The judge and I had also conducted the courses, now run by the Law Society, for the benefit of young and more senior legal practitioners, for many years. They are now used for Compulsory Professional Development, of course, but were once designed for and by the Young Lawyers of the Society. The Little Red Book has again been an important reference for the registrants. I had pointed out to them that they had been getting only half the benefit, unfortunately. This publication remedies that misfortune. His Honour is a pleasure with whom to teach, and we have enjoyed this teaching association now for a long time. He brings to his teaching the same excellent, but clear, presentation and advice you will find in the Little Red Book. I have mentioned my own involvement in teaching advocacy over many years in order that I can, with no modesty and a little bit of authority, properly assess the value of the product of which I now write. From time to time, I am asked to speak to Law Society practitioners on topics of interests on advocacy. I never do so without reference to the Little Red Book. I heartily recommend it to anyone fortunate enough to have read this foreword; that is, they have the book in their hands! Rex Wild QC Darwin, NT 2016
6
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Introduction When the first edition of Chief Justice Riley’s book appeared, it came with a ringing endorsement from the then President of the Law Society Northern Territory Mr Ian Morris. As Mr Morris said at the time: Justice Riley has the happy knack of reducing sometimes complex difficult propositions of advocacy into an easy to understand and easy to follow program for the budding advocate. The instruction in his article is equally at home as a refresher for those somewhat more practised in the field of advocacy or as a handy guide for solicitors who are considering the manner in which evidence can best be brought to the court in a matter they are preparing for trial. It seemed to the Law Society of the Northern Territory that to permit Justice Riley’s articles to remain gathering dust in back issues of our magazine, Balance, was a great waste. Happily the idea was born to combine all of his Honour’s articles in a book so as to ensure that they can be readily at hand for all those who need them. The vibrant colour of the cover of his Honour’s book will demonstrate to any Bench that they are the recipient of well considered and puissant submissions. If you knew Ian you would expect the glowing recommendation to be sincere, short and appropriately deferential. In anticipation of its publication Ian noted to readers of the Society’s magazine “One reason this will be such a successful book, apart from the writing, is every advocate ought to have a copy ready at hand and to recollect that His Honour is not known as a vindictive judge.” Clearly Ian was proud of what he described as “one of the most important legal texts of our time”– no doubt having the first book published by the Society occurring on his watch played some part. This text is an enduring work, pearls of wisdom that ought not be overlooked, nodoubt the red cover will be easily spied on the bar table. We are pleased to see it updated and reissued and recommend the text to all those seeking to advance their advocacy in this jurisdiction. Megan Lawton Chief Executive Officer Law Society Northern Territory
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
7
From the Author Upon my appointment to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the president of the Law Society, Steve Southwood QC (now Southwood J), took advantage of the warm inner glow I was then feeling and asked me to write some articles on advocacy for the Law Society magazine, Balance. I have a keen interest in advocacy and was pleased to agree. I commenced with the first article in February 1999 and have been writing them ever since. The idea to publish the articles in booklet form came from the former president of the Law Society, Ian Morris. I thank him and the Law Society for the opportunity. Mr Morris accepted responsibility for the title. The articles reflect a confluence of many streams of information. They are informed by my own experience as an advocate, much reading and by my participation in workshops conducted by the Australian Advocacy Institute and by the Northern Territory Bar Association for the Young Lawyers Association. Trevor Riley
8
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
About the Author Chief Justice Trevor John Riley was born at Bruce Rock, Western Australia, in January 1948, and obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree at the University of Western Australia in 1969. The Judge has lengthy experience in law dating from 1972, predominantly in commercial litigation. He practised as a partner in a Perth law firm before arriving in the Northern Territory in 1974. The Judge was employed as a solicitor with the firm of Withnall and Barker before taking up a position in 1975 with Ward Keller, where he practised until 1985, first as an employee solicitor and subsequently as a partner. In April 1985, he joined the Independent Bar, and was appointed as Queen’s Counsel for the Northern Territory in April 1989. He was admitted to practise in South Australia and Queensland, and was appointed as Queen’s Counsel for Western Australia in September 1992. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1999 and Chief Justice on 27 September 2010. His Honour has a keen interest in advocacy. He has for many years been an instructor with the Australian Advocacy Institute and has conducted advocacy workshops for young lawyers in the NT since 1994. He has also instructed in intensive advocacy workshops conducted by the Bangladesh Bar Council in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Chief Justice has held a number of senior appointments both in the legal and community areas, including the President of the Northern Territory Bar Association, 1993-97; Junior Vice President of the Australian Bar Association, 1993-94; Vice President of the Law Society NT in 1989; and, Member of the Supreme Court Admission Board. His extensive community involvement has included positions with the Marriage Guidance Council, St John Ambulance, NT Football League, Northern Territory University (as lecturer and member of the Faculty Board), and the Darwin Community Legal Service.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
9
About the Cartoonist Chips Mackinolty is a Darwin-based writer and graphic artist with a vicarious interest in the law. Having decided gap years were wasted on the young, Chips Mackinolty presently resides in Palermo, Sicily, in the second year of his gap year. Chips was a member of the Earthworks Posters Collective at the Sydney University Art Workshop in the 1970s when posters began to be used as a political tool. He has been very active in the field ever since. In the 1980s he worked as an art adviser to Aboriginal art centres in Katherine and Mutijulu in the Northern Territory before joining the Northern Land Council, where he filled various roles including as a communications officer, journalist, designer and field officer. He has at various times worked as a correspondent for newspapers including the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian. Between 1991 and 2002 he was a Director of Green Ant Research Arts and Publishing and from 2002 until 2009 an adviser and speechwriter to various ministers of the Northern Territory Labor Government. Before heading off on his extended gap year, Chips worked as the Manager, Research Advocacy Policy, with the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory. Chips has held, and been represented in, many exhibitions throughout Australia and in Italy. He has been a winner of the Fremantle Print Award, the Australian Macworld Expo Art Award for tabloid newspapers, Northern Territory Print Journalist of the Year Award and the Togart Contemporary Art Prize. His works are held in numerous galleries in Australia, including the National Gallery of Australia, and overseas.
10
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
For Jan
Preparation is the Key “Preparation is the be-all of good trial work. Everything else—felicity of expression, improvisational brilliance— is a satellite around the sun. Thorough preparation is that sun.” Louis Nizer
Advocacy, as we all know, is the art of persuasion. As with genius, effective advocacy is 99 per cent perspiration and one per cent inspiration. In my experience, the best advocates in Australia are also the hardest working. They are at ease on their feet because they know the content of each brief thoroughly and have mastered all of the relevant law. What you see in court when such an advocate appears is the tip of the preparation iceberg. Much of what has been read, considered and researched will not emerge during the course of the hearing but, should the opportunity or requirement present itself, the advocate can address competently on any issue of fact or law. The first rule of advocacy is simply stated: be prepared. In order for an advocate to be adequately prepared, it is necessary that he or she has a complete understanding of the case and a plan for the presentation of the case designed to ensure the best available outcome for the client. This means, prior to the commencement of any hearing, the advocate must: 1. Be thoroughly familiar with all of the relevant facts; 2. Have identified the issues which will or may be raised; 3. Have a clear understanding of how those issues are to be approached and resolved to serve the best interests of the client; and 4. Have a knowledge of, and ready familiarity with, the applicable principles of law and the relevant case law. To commence a hearing without having satisfied these pre-requisites is to do a disservice to the client, yourself and the system of justice within which we work.
Mastering the Facts By the time you are in a position to commence final preparation for trial you should have available to you the complete and detailed statements of all relevant and available witnesses, whether those witnesses are to be called or not. These statements will generally provide you with all, or almost all, of
12
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
the information necessary to enable you to prepare your case. If you do not have the necessary statements you should obtain them yourself or insist they be provided. The statements of all witnesses should be presented in an orderly and logical form. This will often involve a chronological recounting of the history but, in some cases, other approaches may appeal. The statements of the various witnesses should cover all matters related to the proceedings. They will go beyond the information necessary for the proceedings and cover matters that are not only clearly relevant but also those that are marginally or peripherally relevant. This broad approach is necessary to ensure you have a complete picture of events and to ensure you are prepared should a witness, at the hearing, digress or be taken into an area you had not anticipated would be touched upon. Familiarity with the facts often goes beyond a consideration of what the witnesses have to say. For example, in many cases there will be exhibits which have to be read and understood. Similarly, in cases which turn on matters of fact, it will often be an appropriate precaution to visit the scene in order to obtain a complete understanding of the information provided through the witnesses. In all but the simplest of factual disputes the use of a chronology will prove invaluable. The chronology should be sparse in the detail it records but complete in that all incidents and events are recorded. It should also identify the source of the information it contains so this may be readily located at any future time. The style of chronology adopted is a matter of personal preference but a useful example may be as follows: DATE
FACTS
SOURCE
10 January 1999
Deceased arrive in Darwin
(Smith par42)
11 January 1999
Deceased purchased vehicle
(Smith par43, receipt)
12 January 1999
10.00 am: Deceased left home address
(Jones par14) (Adams par23) (Jones para16)
10.15 am: Deceased entered Casuarina Square 10.30 am: Deceased entered Casuarina Square
A chronology is an important part of the process of preparation. It permits you to see the events and incidents in their correct sequence. It enables you to identify conflicts between the versions of events given by different witnesses (e.g. the evidence of Jones and Adams in the example above) and also assists in identifying inconsistencies within the evidence of individual witnesses. When you are in court a chronology is a ready source of information. Whilst you are on your feet you can quickly locate the source of any fact you may wish to use for the purposes of cross-examination or in responding to questions from the Bench.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
13
Even though you have detailed and complete statements, it is important the advocate personally meet with each witness to be called prior to the witness entering the witness box. It may be that the meeting can only be by telephone. However it is important you make some assessment of the witness and you give the witness the opportunity to become familiar with you. What appears in a witness statement lacks colour and depth. It is only by communicating with the witness that a proper assessment of the strength or weakness of what is being said, how it is being said and the true flavour of that information can be ascertained.
Identifying the Issues In theory at least, the issues should be identified by the pleadings. In many cases this will be not so and it will be necessary for a reconsideration of the pleadings to take place at this time. The factual issues will be identified by matters which become obvious during the course of considering the witness statements, the interrogatories, the exhibits, the pleadings and what you are able to glean of your opponent’s case from all other available sources. In determining what will be in issue in proceedings (both factually and as a matter of law) it is vital that you consider the case from the point of view of your opponent. What is the case for the opponent? What matters are important to the presentation of his or her case? What are the strengths of that case and what are the weaknesses of that case? You will at some time have to deal with the strong points of your opponent’s case; likewise you will wish to exploit the weaknesses of that case and it is during this early preparation that such matters need to be identified and addressed. Similarly, of course, you will need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of your own case.
14
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Brief In the process of preparation you should organise your brief into an order with which you can become familiar and which will enable you to quickly identify and locate material within your brief at any time. The physical organisation of the brief is a matter for personal preference but one method, which may appeal, is to have a series of folders or, alternatively, a series of divisions within one folder, for different categories of documents. The divisions or folders may include: •
Pleadings, interrogatories and answers thereto, lists of discovery and other court documents;
•
the witness statements in alphabetical order;
•
expert reports, separated into areas of expertise, then placed in alphabetical order and, for each individual expert, arranged chronologically accompanied by the letter of request;
•
important, or what are sometimes described as “critical”, documents e.g. relevant contracts or correspondence and the like;
•
discovered documents and other relevant but not vital documents.
In each division the separate items may be tagged for ease of identification and location. The chronology should be kept in a prominent and accessible location e.g. at the beginning of the division containing the witness statements or in front of the court documents. When you are familiar with the facts and the law and have identified the issues to be resolved, you are then in a position to undertake what is referred to in the workshops conducted by the Australian Advocacy Institute as “Case Analysis”.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
15
The Case Strategy “First settle what the case is, before you argue it.” Lord Chief Justice Howe, Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688)
When all the necessary information has been gathered, the relevant law identified and researched and the issues ascertained, it is time for the advocate to embark upon a crucial step in the preparation for trial. I have called this the case strategy but it has been variously described by writers on the subject of advocacy as “the case analysis”, “developing the case concept”, “the case summary” and “identifying the case theory”. However it may be described, it is the process of developing a blueprint for the presentation of the case. Glissan and Tilmouth in their work Advocacy in Practice succinctly describe the process as a “short concise summary of the theme lying behind the case, accommodating all the facts and evidence in a way which produces the winning conclusion.” The process involves identifying where you are at the moment having undertaken all of the preliminary information gathering processes available, then looking at where you realistically wish to be at the conclusion of the case and finally determining how you move from the first point to the second. It may be likened to travelling from one side of a large city to another. You know your starting point and your destination and it is necessary to determine how best to get from one to the other. It may be that you will simply barrel along a freeway and get there quickly; however, if you are aware of a roadblock or some other impediment, you may wish to take a less direct route to achieve the same end. Whatever approach you take you will not wish to find yourself part way along your journey driving into dead end streets, or being confronted by one-way roads heading in the wrong direction. It is vital you plan ahead to ensure the journey is completed in the most effective manner available. In order to achieve a workable case strategy you need to address each and every issue (both legal and factual) you previously identified in the course of preparation. It is essential for you to devise a plan as to how each is to be approached and resolved. When developing your case strategy you will ask many questions of yourself: What are the strengths of the case? What are the weaknesses? How do I deal with the strengths and the weaknesses? What are the strengths of the case for the other side? What is the inter-relationship between the relevant facts and the relevant law? What is a consistent and intellectually satisfying presentation of the matter that encompasses my instructions, anticipates the
16
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
evidence and argument of the other side, places emphasis on the strengths of the case and avoids or nullifies the weaknesses? When you have answered those questions you will have your case strategy. In considering each issue, and prior to settling upon a strategy, it will be necessary for you to look at the matter through the eyes of your opponent. This will assist you to identify weaknesses in your own case and devise methods for dealing with them; it will also enable you to fully appreciate the strengths of your own case and to devise methods for the presentation of those strengths in a way which makes them secure from effective attack by your opponent. Once you have developed the broad strategy for your case, you will follow that strategy unless confronted by the dramatically unexpected. The witnesses you call, the evidence you introduce and the areas in which you propose to attack the opposition case will be governed by the case strategy you have developed and should not detract from it. It is by reference to the case strategy that you will determine what is necessary and relevant for the proper presentation of your case. In most cases the best case strategy will involve following the path of least resistance and not taking on any unnecessary disputes or obligations. For example, if you are easily able to establish that a witness is mistaken in relation to a fact, why take on the added burden of endeavouring to show that the witness is untruthful? If a finding of dishonesty against a witness does not add to the strength of the case being presented on behalf of your client, leave it alone. It may be satisfying to your own ego to successfully confront the witness in that way but in doing so you take on an unnecessary additional burden. There is the risk that, notwithstanding your confidence in your own superb skills, you may not succeed. If you convert the issue from one of mistake on the part of the witness to whether the witness is a liar, you may find the tribunal of fact unwilling to take that extra step.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
17
This also applies to issues. If you have determined it is unnecessary for the proper presentation of your case to address a particular issue do not attempt to do so. You have already decided attacking that issue is not a necessary part of your case. If you attack it and lose the argument the consequence is likely to be that you have harmed your case in some way. If you have a case strategy you will have predetermined what is necessary and what is not necessary and you will avoid adding to your burden and risk by addressing the unnecessary. The effective advocate will develop a strategy designed to achieve the best result available for the client and will follow that strategy and not be distracted by irrelevancies.
18
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Presentation of the Case “The picture cannot be painted if the significant and the insignificant are given equal prominence. One must know how to select.” Benjamin Cardozo
When you have completed your preparation and settled your case strategy it is necessary to determine how you will actually present the case. You know what evidence is available to you and what it is you need to establish; you now have to determine how that is most effectively attended to. Which witnesses do you wish to call? Which witnesses do you have to call? Which witnesses should you avoid calling? What evidence should you lead from each of the witnesses called? In what order will you call the witnesses? To effectively present your case it is not simply a matter of looking at your list of available witnesses and saying: “Well, you can go first, followed by you, followed by you and we’ll finish up with you.” It is essential you give careful thought to who is to be called and the order of presentation. The question you need to pose for yourself is: “How can I achieve the most favourable impact in presenting the evidence in this case?” In the ordinary course you would wish to commence your case and conclude your case with witnesses who you know will be impressive and leave a positive impact upon the court. You may wish to call the less impressive evidence and the less vital evidence at another time – perhaps deep within the case. A vital and compelling witness called early in the hearing may set the scene for the entire case. This will be the witness first called upon to meet the brunt of the attack of the other side. If the witness is strong and confident in his or her evidence then some issues, which may have been a problem with a less confident witness, may disappear before the less confident witness gets into the witness box. For example, take a case where there is an issue with the time an event occurred on a certain day. If witness A is firm and confident that events occurred in a certain order and the particular event occurred at a certain time, and witness X is of the same view but easily confused, then it would be prudent to call witness A before witness X. The evidence of witness A will (hopefully) ensure the order of events and the time of the particular event is firmly established. The matter will no longer be an issue when counsel eventually rises to cross-examine witness X. Indeed opposing counsel may never become aware of the difficulty you had. In this way the threat the issue posed may be defused and, equally importantly, an area which may have led to a discrediting of witness X may be avoided.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
19
Unfortunately witnesses do not come from central casting; you cannot send them back and ask for another. Over time you will find you are confronted by the whole spectrum of personalities and personal characteristics known to the world. Witnesses can be nervous, over-confident, over-helpful, biased, prejudiced, hostile, argumentative, suggestible, boorish, taciturn, garrulous or of any one or more of innumerable other dispositions. In order to make an assessment of each witness and to determine firstly whether to call the witness, and then where the witness should appear in the batting order, and then how you should handle the witness, it is necessary for you to meet with the witness either directly or, at least, by telephone. What may appear as a clear, confident and firm statement of fact in print, may receive a wholly different assessment when you discuss the matter in person with the witness. The witness may be over-confident, too ready to make assertions which assist the case or, simply, prepared to make statements without thinking the matter through. Such a person is a dangerous witness. On the other hand the witness may be totally lacking in confidence in the facts which appear in the statement and may be quick to resile from that position when tested. It is therefore essential that you have a “feel” for your witnesses so you may properly allow for and prepare for any failing which he or she may have. Having identified the witnesses you intend to call and the order in which you intend to call them, it is necessary to consider the best way in which to lead their evidence. A witness will feel more comfortable with the process if he or she has some familiarity with it prior to first entering the witness box. It is helpful to take the witness to the court room and point out where he or she will sit; explain the processes to the witness; determine in advance whether an oath is to be taken or an affirmation; explain the order of events, i.e. evidence in chief, cross-examination and re-examination and inform them how they should address the various people who make up the court. In this
20
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
way the witness will be able to focus on giving evidence rather than worrying as to matters of form and sequence. For most people giving evidence is a nerve racking experience, the more comfortable you can make the witness the more likely you are to be able to lead from the witness the evidence which you anticipate will be given. If the witness is nervous then familiarity with the court and procedures will reduce one area that may be a cause of apprehension. It is important that you let the witness know that most (if not all) courts understand that giving evidence is a difficult experience and will make allowance for nervousness engendered by the process. You will assist such witnesses by yourself being (at least on the surface) cool and calm and confident. There is no harm in giving witnesses some idea of how to handle themselves generally in the witness box. For example, they should be told such things as: the importance of speaking clearly; to keep their answers as short as possible whilst providing a proper answer to a question; if they do not hear or understand a question they should ask to have it repeated; they should never guess at what a question means but rather seek clarification if they are unsure; they should listen to the question and answer the question and so on. Be sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of your witnesses when determining how best to present your case.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
21
The Opening “If you want to win a case, paint the Judge a picture and keep it simple.” John W Davis
Your first opportunity to present your case to the court is in the opening; this is not an opportunity to be wasted. It will provide you with the occasion to set the scene and create a favourable framework for the proceedings. It enables you to describe in the most compelling way the case which is to be presented on behalf of your client. It follows that the opening should not be a matter of simply getting to your feet and presenting an unrehearsed or mechanical summary of the case to the court. Preparation is again the key. You need to carefully consider what should be said in the course of your opening. You should craft the presentation of that information in order to have the greatest impact. You should carefully select the words to be used and the order in which your thoughts are to be presented. You will, of course, open in a manner which reflects your predetermined case strategy. There is no formula to be applied in presenting an opening. What can and should be said will vary with the circumstances of each case. However there are some observations which will apply to most cases. The first suggestion I would make is when considering what you will say and how you will say it, you put yourself in the position of the court. In most cases the court will have limited familiarity with the matter. The pleadings will have been considered and the judge will therefore have some idea what the case is about but he or she will have only the barest of information. A jury will have even less information. Bearing that in mind it will be your role to put some flesh on the bones. You should keep in the forefront of your mind the fact that, because of your detailed preparation, you will have a thorough knowledge of the whole of the matter whereas the court will not. The court is unlikely to be familiar with the identities of the players in the proceedings, or with the sequence of events, or with the differing versions of events which may come from various witnesses. It is necessary to deliver a succinct and, so far as is possible, instructive and engaging account of the case to be presented on behalf of your client. In a civil case of any complexity I suggest you use a chronology as an aid in your opening. I have previously discussed the use of a chronology for the purposes of preparation and I suggest that document be adapted to make it suitable for the purpose of presenting it to the court to assist in your opening.
22
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
You should show your opponent the document prior to presenting it to the court and you should obtain the approval of the court for its use. Obviously you should not include in the chronology any reference which you are not in a position to prove or, alternatively, has not been agreed by your opponent. The chronology will enable the court to obtain a ready understanding of the sequence of events and will provide a convenient method of reminding itself of the history. If numerous witnesses are to be called it would be also prudent to provide a “list of players”. By this I mean a list of people who may be referred to, whether witnesses or not, setting out their names and a limited amount of information which will serve to identify them. Descriptions should be noncontroversial and should be shown to your opponent before being presented to the court. When those persons are referred to in the course of your opening and in the course of evidence, the court will have available to it a ready means of reminding itself who that person is and where he or she fits into the overall picture. The use of a chronology and a list of players will also assist in overcoming the difficulty which arises from the fact that the information you are providing to the court is received aurally which, of course, is a less than satisfactory way of conveying information. In presenting the factual background to the matter you should do so in a logical (and that generally will mean chronological) manner. You should be as interesting and as concise as possible. This will make your opening easier to follow. It is not necessary to present the background first. The order in which you present matters will be dependent upon the nature of the case and your determination of the most effective approach. At this time it will be necessary for you to determine whether you should
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
23
confront all issues in the opening. Obviously you will present your own case in a convincing way. Whether you should address your opponent’s case will be a matter for judgment in the particular circumstances of the matter. It may be preferable to address difficulties with which you are sure you will be confronted in order to resolve some of the impact of those problems. Of course you may wish to leave those issues to see what your opponent makes of them. It is all a matter of judgment and anticipation. In the event that you choose to address your opponent’s case you should only do so if it can be dealt with simply and you should not descend into argument at this time. It is a mistake to open your case at a higher level than necessary. You may be confident you can establish your case at that high level but why should you take on the unnecessary burden? If you fail to achieve the higher standard you have adopted for your client you can be sure it will be the subject of embarrassing comment by your opponent. It can only reflect adversely upon your client’s case. However, if you set your opening at a moderate level and, at the end of the day, you achieve a higher level, then obviously your client’s case is enhanced. The opening is an opportunity to provide a favourable direction to the proceedings and to make a first and telling impact on the court. You should ensure you make full use of that opportunity.
24
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Evidence in Chief “Most lawyers who win a case advise their clients ‘we have won’, and when justice has frowned upon their cause …‛you have lost’.” Louis Nizer
It is easy to overlook the importance of the presentation of the evidence in chief of your client and your client’s witnesses. Whilst the cross-examination of your opponent’s witnesses may be the most exhilarating or frustrating part of a case and whilst, on some occasions, you may achieve a telling result through that process, more often than not your case will be won or lost on the basis of the evidence presented in chief. It is obviously vital the presentation of that evidence occurs in a thoughtful and effective manner. The quality of the witnesses who will present the evidence on behalf of your client is something largely beyond your control. Generally speaking you must take your witnesses as you find them. Important parts of the case you are to present will be in the hands of individuals who may be nervous, prone to exaggeration, prone to underestimation, argumentative, taciturn, garrulous, shifty in appearance, evasive in manner and possessing any one or more of a whole range of other unhelpful characteristics. I recommend you interview each of your witnesses in order to assess their qualities and frailties and to determine how best to present your evidence through them. Having undertaken this process you should be in a position to assess what you can expect of the witness in the witness box and how best to lead the evidence from that witness. In most cases it will be desirable to allow the witness to present his or her own story in his or her own words. You will be able to lead the witness through the evidence by asking questions such as: “What happened next?”, “What did you do then?” and the like. If your witness is capable of recounting the history in intelligible terms, questions of that kind may be all that is required of you. On the other hand it may be necessary for you to exercise a greater degree of control over your witness or, alternatively, for you to prise the evidence from the witness. If you have a garrulous or excitable witness it would be prudent to diplomatically alert the witness to that part of their nature and to invite him or her to present the evidence in a calm and concise manner. When the witness is in the witness box and strays into emotional, lengthy or irrelevant responses to your guiding questions, a reminder that the answers should be limited to responding to the questions asked is likely to remind the witness of the warning previously
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
25
given. If this fails you may have to resort to questions of a narrow focus and take the witness through the evidence in a controlled way. If your witness is reticent or, for whatever reason, not forthcoming with information, it will be necessary for you to structure your examination in order to lead the evidence bit by bit. Short questions building one upon the other and in a logical progression through the story is likely to be the most productive approach to adopt. However, in most cases your role will be to direct the delivery of evidence by asking appropriate broadly based questions. Those questions will generally be short and simple and will commence with words such as “what”, “when”, “where”, “how” and the like. Insofar as is possible you should let the witness tell the story rather than conducting a question and answer session. In order to ensure the witness remains on track, or to emphasise some aspect of the evidence, you may wish, on occasions, to summarise the earlier evidence. For example, you may say: “You have told us that you attended at the hotel, that you had four beers, that you entered a conversation with Joe Bloggs where he mentioned your mother-in-law, now please tell us what happened next.” You may also wish to control the direction of the evidence by identifying the areas into which you intend to take the witness. For example, you may introduce a topic by saying: “I now wish to ask you some questions about what happened at the hospital.” You then proceed to ask questions with regard to that topic. When the topic has been exhausted you will open the next topic in the same manner. These techniques should not be used continuously in the course of examination in chief because to do so reduces their impact and will become a source of irritation to the tribunal. Rather they should be used at intervals in the course of the taking of the evidence. It is of assistance to most, if not all, witnesses that you proceed in a logical order of presentation. The logical order will almost always be that which appeals to your witness and this will generally involve dealing with the matter on a chronological basis. If, in the course of giving evidence, the witness is recounting events and omits to mention a matter of importance, do not interrupt the witness. Rather allow him or her to complete their account of the matter under discussion then return to the matter which has been overlooked. Similarly, if the witness has a mental block or is unable to appreciate what it is you are endeavouring to extract from them, leave the area and address a fresh topic. To press the witness at that time is likely to increase the pressure on the witness and lead to confusion. You should return to the problem area at a later time and, if possible, from a different direction. It is important you listen to the answers given by your witness and show interest in what is being said. If you do not do this you will contribute to any
26
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
discomfort your witness may be feeling. Put yourself in the position of the witness who is asked a question by a person who seems to have no interest in the answer. What does the witness do? Who does he or she respond to? Further, you may miss a vital answer that is inconsistent with what was to be expected from the proof of evidence you have before you. In the event your witness does provide you with an answer inconsistent with your instructions, you should not demonstrate surprise or exasperation or any kind of displeasure. To do so emphasises to all in court the fact that you have received a “wrong answer”. It will also contribute to any concern the witness may be feeling. If the matter is sufficiently important you may wish to come back to it in another way at a later time, but you should be wary of an objection based upon you endeavouring to cross-examine your witness. If the “wrong answer” is not of overwhelming importance to your case you may be better advised to leave it alone. This will be a matter for the exercise of your judgment at the time. You can assist your witness in the presentation of evidence by yourself being calm, confident, concise and seeking information in a logical order. It will help your witnesses if you refer to them by name. It must be offputting, dehumanising and aggravating for a person in the witness box to be addressed as “witness” rather than by name. Further, you should use any title to which that person is entitled, e.g. Constable Smith, Doctor Jones, Professor Adams. This is a matter of simple courtesy. I recommend you endeavour to ensure each of your witnesses is both familiar and comfortable with the process which they are about to undertake and they understand what is expected of them. Whilst it is necessary to avoid asking leading questions in evidence in chief,
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
27
common sense requires you be permitted to do so in some areas and on some occasions. The court is likely to become frustrated if non-leading questions are asked in relation to peripheral and non-contentious matters. It should be possible for you to agree with your opponent that you will lead the witness in areas that are not controversial but that you will apply the rules when appropriate. Your strategy in leading your evidence in chief is likely to be to obtain the necessary information from your witness in an orderly fashion, a comprehensible manner and in a way most likely to lead to that testimony being accepted. In order to achieve this end careful preparation is required.
28
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Cross-Examination “More cross-examinations are suicidal than homicidal.” F L Wellman: The Art of Cross-Examination
When your opponent resumes his or her seat after leading a witness through the evidence in chief the first question you should ask is not of that witness but of yourself: “Should I cross-examine this witness?” There is an understandable pressure to cross-examine each and every witness called by your opponent. There is a natural reluctance to allow any evidence called by the other side to go unchallenged. Further, there is often an expectation on the part of your client that you will cleverly undermine or, preferably, destroy the credibility of any witness who has given evidence for another party. Generally the expectation is that you will challenge all or at least some of what has been said. However, you should not feel compelled to cross-examine. It is harder to make the considered decision not to ask questions than it is to launch into an ill-considered cross-examination. If there is no good reason to cross-examine the witness then you should avoid the temptation to do so. In such a case you are unlikely to improve your client’s position and you are most likely to damage it. In the many texts dealing with the topic of advocacy the objects or aims of cross-examination have been identified in a variety of ways. However, a consideration of those writings reveals the authors are expressing similar views. The aims of cross-examination include the following: 1. to obtain evidence favourable to your client; 2. to destroy and/or weaken evidence unfavourable to your client. This may involve an attack upon the credibility of the witness; 3. to put your case to the witness in order to satisfy the requirements of fairness commonly referred to as the rule in Browne v Dunn. In considering whether to cross-examine a particular witness you will return to your case strategy and by reference to that strategy determine whether anything is to be gained by proceeding to ask questions. Ask yourself whether any of the aims of cross-examination will be achieved in light of your case strategy if you ask this particular witness any questions. In determining whether to cross-examine that witness you should also bear in mind that in most cases the position of the witness is likely to be adverse to your client’s interest. The witness is being called on behalf of your
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
29
opponent. In the majority of cases you cannot be confident of the responses the witness will make to your questions. In those circumstances the asking of questions will always be a dangerous undertaking. Having considered the matters discussed above and determined you do need to cross-examine you should apply the same scrutiny to each and every question you propose to ask. You should limit yourself to what is absolutely necessary to achieve your purpose and resist any temptation to undertake a fishing expedition. Whilst an ill thought out or random cross-examination will, on occasion, produce a favourable result, that result will be achieved by accident and incredible good luck. The more likely result is that unfortunate and irreparable damage will be done to your client’s case. If you are to cross-examine, it should be in accordance with a clearly thought out plan based upon your case strategy and with definite aims in mind. Your goals should be clear and identified. You should be sure of what you are doing and why you are doing it. In the event you decide not to cross-examine, it may be prudent for you to keep your client informed as to why you did not do so. In many cases the client will be expecting cross-examination to occur and he or she will be concerned when you announce you have no questions for the witness. In their work Advocacy and Practice, Glissan and Tilmouth describe the first rule of cross-examination as: “do not without very good reason.” That sentiment echoes the observations of authors expressed in many works over many years.
30
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Preparing for CrossExamination “…answers are not obtained by putting the wrong question and thereby begging the real one.” Felix Frankfurter, Priebe & Sons v United States
Having determined you will cross-examine a particular witness it becomes necessary for you to plan that cross-examination. You will need to determine in advance the topics or areas in relation to which you will ask questions, the topics or areas you will avoid, the nature of your approach and the order in which you will deal with the matters you wish to raise. In most cases it will be possible to determine in advance of the hearing whether it will be necessary to cross-examine a particular witness. Prior to the commencement of the hearing you will be aware of the nature of your case, the nature of your opponent’s case and the likely content of the evidence to be led from most witnesses. You will therefore have the opportunity to prepare much of your cross-examination by anticipating the evidence. Having prepared the substance of your cross-examination in advance you will be able to add to or delete from what you have proposed by reference to the performance of the witness in actually giving the evidence. In your preparation, the first matter to be considered is the identification of the areas to be addressed and, conversely, those you propose to avoid. As I have previously observed you should only enter into cross-examination where it is necessary to achieve an identified purpose. Before asking your first question you should clearly identify the goals of your cross-examination and how those goals are to be achieved. In considering how you will achieve your goals it will be necessary to determine the nature of your approach to the cross-examination. Broadly speaking there are two approaches to cross-examination. The first is the indirect, probing approach where the witness is not attacked but rather information is led (or extracted) from him or her in an indirect, courteous and non-combative way. The other approach is a confrontational one in which the witness is directly challenged, possibly vigorously, in relation to the evidence that has been given. In many instances you will, at different stages of your cross-examination, employ both approaches. There will be matters you will wish to lead from the witness as being favourable to your client’s case or reflecting adversely upon the case to be presented by your opponent.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
31
In relation to other matters it will be necessary for you to directly challenge what the witness has said. You will be required to put matters to the witness to provide a basis for a submission that the court should not accept the evidence of the witness because the witness is untruthful or is, for some other reason, unreliable. If your cross-examination is to involve a combination of approaches then, generally speaking, it is prudent to endeavour to extract the favourable information from the witness before launching into any challenge to the witness. You should bear in mind that the great majority of witnesses endeavour to tell the truth as they recall events. They may be mistaken but they are not setting out to deliberately deceive. You may be able to undermine the impact of the evidence of such a witness by drawing further information from them or qualifying information previously given in evidence. It would be imprudent to deal with issues in relation to which you propose to directly challenge the witness prior to dealing with those other matters because, as we all know, once you attack a witness such an approach is likely to result in the witness becoming decidedly uncooperative. It is therefore necessary to predetermine the nature of the approach you will adopt regarding each topic to be addressed and then to deal with those topics in an order which is likely to achieve the best results. Further, in determining the approach you will adopt, it will be necessary to take into account the personality of the witness. This may involve some preliminary and testing questions in the early part of your cross-examination. For example, a witness who is tentative in evidence and hesitant about his or her answers may be most productively dealt with by short firm positive propositions being confidently placed before them. On the other hand a witness who is quick to adopt a position and is immediately firm in that position may be better dealt with by a series of less direct questions leading ultimately to a necessary acceptance of the proposition which you wish to be adopted. The approach will depend upon many factors including the matter to be addressed and the nature of the witness. In most cases the most productive approach is likely to be to adopt the non-combative, probing approach initially and only resort to a directly challenging approach at a later time. It will be a matter for your judgment on each occasion. When dealing with topics that are sensitive in a personal sense to the witness or vital to the outcome of the case, you should take great care in formulating your questions. Think about the precise formulation in advance and determine a form of words most likely to achieve your desired result. This does not mean you should script the whole of your cross-examination. You should not. It should follow a form dictated by the dynamics of the
32
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
occasion. However for those few pivotal questions it is prudent to have a clear and considered plan of attack in place. Having determined your goals and the method by which you propose to achieve those goals it is important to remember that when you have achieved the desired result you should stop. Do not ask further questions designed to drive home any point you have made or are able to make in your address. Do not allow yourself to be carried away by the triumph of the moment and seek to prolong it by asking further questions. The risk of asking further questions is that you will undo all of your good work.
1.
See generally Stone: Proof of Fact in Criminal Trials (W. Grant & Son)
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
33
Some Limitations on CrossExamination “Cross-examination is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’.” Wigmore on Evidence (Vol. V, Para. 1367)
Strictly speaking there is no “right” of cross-examination. The only actual “right” is the right to a fair trial. 1 In practice the right to a fair trial almost always ensures a party is permitted to cross-examine witnesses who have provided evidence for another party. Where cross-examination is permitted, and this is in almost every case, the exercise of that right is not unfettered. The Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (“Uniform Evidence Act”) is but one source of limitations upon the scope of cross-examination. By reference to the Uniform Evidence Act you will find that: 1. a witness can object to answering a question on the basis that the evidence would tend to incriminate the witness or make him or her liable to a civil penalty (s 128); 2. the court may disallow questions that are irrelevant (s 56); 3. generally, a credibility evidence about a witness is not admissible (s 102), unless such evidence adduced during cross-examination could substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of the witness (s 103(1)); 4. in criminal proceedings, the defendant must not be cross-examined by the prosecutor on issues of credibility unless the court grants leave and particular circumstances exist (s 104); 5. the court may grant leave for a party to cross-examine its own witness on credibility, where the witness is found to have given unfavourable evidence (s 38);2 6. the court may disallow questions that are improper (s 41). Improper means a question that:
34
•
is misleading or confusing;
•
is unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive;
•
is being put to the witness in a manner or tone that is belittling, insulting or otherwise inappropriate;
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
•
has no basis other than a stereotype (e.g. based on witness’s sex, race, culture, ethnicity, age or mental, intellectual or physical disability).
Other limitations are to be found in the rules of evidence, in the special obligations imposed upon prosecutors and in legislation such as that dealing with sexual offences. Of course cross-examination is not limited to matters addressed in evidence in chief. However, by virtue of the Uniform Evidence Act, the scope of cross-examination is limited by reference to the requirement that it deal with matters which are relevant or concerned with credit. What is or is not relevant may not be readily apparent at the commencement of a crossexamination or when a new topic is raised. As a matter of practice the court will allow significant leeway to counsel to develop the cross-examination in an area which, at first, may seem to be irrelevant.3 This will particularly be so if counsel assures the court the matter will be made relevant in due course. Some of the more historically famous cross-examinations have originated from a series of questions dealing with matters apparently not in issue. It will only be where counsel’s discretion is not being properly exercised that a judge will intervene. The court has the power to prevent cross-examination being used for a collateral purpose. To use cross-examination for such a purpose may amount to an abuse of process of the court. In Re Mundell; Fenton v Cumberlege (1883) 52 LJ Ch N.S. 756 at 758 it was said that the “Court has a right to protect Her Majesty’s subjects from the practice and process of this Court being simply used to torture them and not for the purpose of justice.” You should bear in mind that the court is entitled to assume that questions asked of a witness in cross-examination are asked in accordance with instructions. What those instructions are may be inferred from the questions asked. Any misconduct on your part in the process of cross-examination may, therefore, be visited upon your client. You may also find, in addresses, your opponent draws upon the questions you have asked to invite the court to act upon the basis that they were your instructions.4 In cases where there are a number of parties with the same interests the judge may not permit any more than one counsel to cross-examine the same witness. Of course in most cases the interests of the various parties will be sufficiently different to enable counsel for each party to cross-examine. The normal situation is that each counsel will be provided the opportunity to crossexamine each witness. Where there is an overlap of interests the judge may interfere to prevent any unfairness arising through repetitive questioning. In reading about advocacy you will have been informed that it is desirable for you to ask leading questions in cross-examination. Whilst that may be so, you should not assume there is an absolute right to ask such questions. Again the concern centres upon the need for fairness. If it is the view of the judge that a witness is merely agreeing to propositions put to him or her by
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
35
way of leading questions, then the asking of those questions and the receipt of the answers may not help the court. They may be of no probative value. This can be a particular problem in the Northern Territory when dealing with some Aboriginal witnesses. In Anunga (1976) 11 ALR 412 at 415 it was observed, in relation to Police questioning of Aboriginal suspects, great care should be taken in formulating questions so that as far as possible “the answer which is wanted or expected is not suggested in any way.” The court said “anything in the nature of cross-examination should be scrupulously avoided as answers to it have no probative value.” The same observations may be made when such an Aboriginal witness is cross-examined in the course of a trial. In a paper published in the Criminal Law Journal,5 Mildren J discussed the problem of what he termed “gratuitous concurrence” and highlighted the need to “warn counsel for the accused about the need for leave before putting leading questions in cross-examination.” A further limitation on cross-examination centres upon how one approaches the witness who gives evidence which is contrary to that of another witness. It is clear a witness ought not be asked whether another witness is telling lies or has invented something. The witness can be asked if he knows any reason why the other witness may be hostile to him, or should tell a false story about him, but he should not be asked to enter into the other witness’s mind to express an opinion as to whether he thinks “the inaccuracy is due to invention, malice, mistake or any other cause.”6 It can be seen that the right of cross-examination is far from unfettered. The restrictions on what can be done in cross-examination are not limited and the matters I have discussed are simply examples of some of the restrictions applicable. In preparing your cross-examination you will need to bear in mind that restrictions apply and to structure your cross-examination accordingly.
36
1.
GPI Leisure v Herdsman Investments (No.3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 at 22; NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 581.
2.
Refer to chapter on unfavourable witness.
3.
Wakeley v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 321 at 325.
4.
R v Sadaraka (1981) 4 A Crim R 221 at 226-227; see also R v Christopher Roy Bean (1999) (25 May 1999 CCA Qld).
5.
Redressing the Imbalance Against Aboriginal in the Criminal Justice System (1997) at 21 CLJ at 7.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Your Approach to CrossExamination “Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to was a tenet I absorbed with my baby food.” Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
We have discussed the need for careful preparation for cross-examination and the fact that part of that preparation will involve a consideration of the nature and characteristics of your witness and how best to approach that witness. You need also bear in mind your own personal characteristics. We each have different personalities with different strengths and weaknesses. Some of us are naturally forceful whilst others may be less so. Some may be loud and others quiet and so on. In determining your approach to a particular witness, indeed to a case, you should bear in mind your strengths and weaknesses and your limitations. You may need to modify your natural inclinations in your dealings with different witnesses. There are many general rules of advocacy you should obey in the presentation of your case and, in particular, in your cross-examination. I discuss some of these below. You should never become angry. An angry advocate is one not fully in control of the situation and one who is likely to make mistakes. An angry advocate is also likely to alienate the court and particularly members of a jury. There is no reason why you should not be firm or forceful as the occasion requires but never angry. You should always be courteous. Descent into discourtesy reflects upon you, and probably upon your client, rather than upon the witness. The courteous but firm and persistent pursuit of an issue is likely to obtain better results than any other approach. If the witness is being evasive or sarcastic or in some other way obstructive, a courteous, but persistent and firm, pursuit of the issue will highlight that. Discourtesy on the part of the advocate serves to focus attention upon the advocate rather than upon the witness. An aspect of being courteous to the witness is that you should be fair to the witness. If you are unfair to the witness, for example by misrepresenting the evidence or browbeating the witness or becoming angry with the witness, you will find this will not assist your cause. The court will be likely to interfere and will, at least, feel sympathy for the witness. You should never argue with a witness. The witness is there to answer questions, you are not. If the witness seeks to engage you in argument you should clearly and firmly avoid the invitation. You should be in control of the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
37
situation and you will lose that control as soon as you enter into debate with the witness. You should always bear in mind that you will have the last word. When all of the evidence is complete and the witness has left the court you will have the opportunity to address the court on the evidence of that witness. Your questions should invariably be clear and concise. If your question is not clear and not concise you risk not obtaining an answer to your question or, alternatively, losing the impact of a clear answer to the question. If the meaning of the question is not clear then what was meant by the answer becomes a matter of interpretation. Such questions also permit a witness to avoid answering directly and frankly. The witness can seize the opportunity to “misunderstand” the question and answer another question. However if your question is clear and concise it will quickly become obvious if the witness chooses to misunderstand the question or not respond to the question. When asking questions you should formulate the question in a manner which will allow the witness to comprehend it. Generally speaking you should use plain language readily understood by all. There is no point in using language which is beyond the comprehension of the witness; confusion will follow. Similarly if you have a witness who has some expertise in an area there is little point asking questions which demonstrate your thorough preparation in the area by the use of unfamiliar words if the judge or jury will not understand those words. You may feel clever in discussing with a medical expert a subarachnoid haemorrhage but there will be little advantage to your case if that expression is not fully understood by the tribunal. When you ask any question ensure you listen to the answer. Your question is not the evidence, the answer is the evidence. If you do not listen carefully to what the witness says you may miss the fact that the witness has provided you with a non-responsive answer or has provided you with information worthy of further pursuit. In the event you receive an answer to a question that is unexpected or, worse still, devastating to your case, you should endeavour not to show surprise. An unexpected answer will be unduly emphasised by your reactions. Rather you should proceed as if nothing untoward had happened whilst you plan the best way to counter the unfortunate turn of events. At the commencement of this article there is a quote from ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. The quote reflects a rule which is often repeated to young advocates: you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. That is probably to express the rule in terms that are too broad and rigid. There will be questions you will ask which will have either answer (a) or answer (b), either of which you will be happy. In those circumstances you may wish to ask the question without knowing the answer. There will also be those questions where you are not concerned by the answer because the questions and answers form part of a building process undertaken with a view to asking a later and more important question. However in relation to those questions which are crucial to the outcome of the case the rule holds true; you should not ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
38
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
In a similar vein you should not ask questions which permit the witness to explain. Again this rule is subject to exceptions and a question seeking explanation may be particularly effective if there cannot be an explanation and the witness is left to flounder. However as a general proposition you should not permit the witness to explain any matter in his or her evidence. If you wish to have an answer explained you should do so by suggesting the explanation rather than simply calling for an explanation. To call for an explanation gives the witness the opportunity to be expansive regarding matters which may be detrimental to your case. There are many rules of advocacy and I have discussed some of these above. In relation to each such rule there will be exceptions. I suggest that departure from the rules should be left to the exceptional circumstance and to the very experienced advocate.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
39
Prior Inconsistent Statements “It took man thousands of years to put words down on paper, and his lawyers still wish he wouldn’t.” Mignon McLaughlin
A common and effective method of attacking the credibility of a witness is to do so with the use of prior inconsistent statements made by the witness. Such statements are likely to be found in evidence given in committal proceedings, statements made to police, answers to interrogatories, in written witness statements produced in the course of preparation for trial and in correspondence passing between the parties prior to the commencement of proceedings. Before deciding to use such a statement you must first ensure what appears in the document is inconsistent with what is being said by the witness in the course of his or her evidence. It must be clear that there is in fact a substantial inconsistency. It may not be sufficient if there is a mere discrepancy in the expressions used by the witness to describe an event. For example, there may not be a sufficient difference where a knife is described as a “kitchen knife” in one statement and as a “table knife” in another. However, if the description varies between a “flick knife” and a “table knife” the position will be different. When you have determined there is a substantial inconsistency between the evidence given in court and that in a prior statement, you will need to proceed with care. You should first lock the witness in to the statement made in court and under oath before seeking to contradict the witness. This may involve taking the witness back over the evidence already given to confirm with the witness that he or she is very clear as to what was said. You may do this by questions that draw the attention of the witness to the oath they have taken, the importance of truth and accuracy in the giving of their evidence and so on. The process may end with questions such as: “You told us X, that is something you clearly remember?” Your questions should leave no room for the witness to subsequently claim he or she was misunderstood or had employed imprecise language or acted in any other way that would permit the witness to subsequently explain away the inconsistency. When you are satisfied the witness is locked into a clear and concrete position in the evidence before the court you may then move to the evidence of the prior inconsistent statement which is to be used to contradict him. You are not required to tender the document after merely showing it to a
40
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
witness,1 however the court may require you to do so under other provisions of the Uniform Evidence Act. The first matter to establish is that the statements in the document are those of the witness. In the event the witness does not admit he made the statement, you may need to prove he did. Section 43(2) of the Uniform Evidence Act is in the following terms: (2) if, in cross-examination, a witness does not admit that he or she has made a prior inconsistent statement, the cross-examiner is not to adduce evidence of the statement otherwise than from the witness unless, in the cross-examination, the cross-examiner: •
informed the witness of enough of the circumstances of the making of the statement to enable the witness to identify the statement; and
•
drew the witness’s attention to so much of the statement as is inconsistent with the witness’s evidence.
In relation to a signed document, proof may be achieved by first showing the witness the signature and having him admit it is his signature. Before taking the witness to the contents of the statement it is desirable to obtain from the witness some evidence that the witness is a truthful and careful person. You may wish to ask questions along the lines of: “You are an honest person?”, “You would not sign a document knowing it to be false?”, “You are careful to ensure that documents you sign are truthful and accurate?”, “You would not sign a document without reading it?” and further questions in that vein varying to suit the circumstances. The witness may then be asked whether he recalls the occasion of making the statement and to confirm on that occasion he was not departing from his normal practice of truthfully and accurately recording events. In circumstances where a document is not signed, for example transcript from a committal proceeding, you should take the witness to the time and place the statement was made and have him acknowledge he gave evidence on that occasion and he did so truthfully, being under oath. You will again employ questions designed to establish that the witness was an accurate and truthful witness on that occasion. In a very useful article entitled Cross-Examination on Documents 2 Hon. Michael McHugh QC (later McHugh J of the High Court) outlined a useful technique for cross-examining on documents. He recommended advocates first “close the gates” before taking the witness to the contradictory material. This involves eliminating possible explanations before using the document to contradict the witness. Before going to the contents of the document, you will ensure you clarify with the witness anything that may be ambiguous or provide an escape route for the witness. For example, if an unusual word is used to describe an event then you may wish to clarify the meaning of the word before you go to it in the document.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
41
You should carefully consider the circumstances surrounding the making of the document and make sure you deal with, and close, all avenues for the witness to explain away the inconsistencies between the two statements. McHugh QC expressed the approach in this way: Every document creates its own problems; it is up to you to think how can this witness explain this away; and long before you obtain the admission, cut off those gateways and explanations. In practice you will find a witness will say that he has changed his view since the time that letter was written, he did not have all the information in his possession at that time, he relied on other persons, and so on. They are common explanations, and you have to frame your questions so that you cut off those explanations, until finally when you put that particular part of the document to him there is no way out. Another way a witness will sometimes seek to avoid the effect of documents is to say, “Oh, somebody told me to write it”, or “I really didn’t know what was in it”, or “I was seeking to get some advantage” or something of that nature. You need to get his admission that when he wrote the document he was not setting out to deceive anybody. When you have locked the witness into his evidence under oath before the court and you have closed the gates in relation to the earlier statement, it is then time to put the contradictory material to the witness. In so doing you will maintain control of the situation by putting to the witness only that material upon which you wish to rely and you will do so item by item. When the contradictory material is placed before the witness he should be invited to acknowledge that it is inconsistent with what he told the court under oath. Depending upon the circumstances you may wish to pursue him by enquiring which version of events is untrue, what he said under oath on this occasion or in his carefully prepared statement on the earlier occasion. Alternatively, you may wish to leave the contradiction unexplained. However, you must remember that reexamination on this topic may follow. Much will depend upon the circumstances of the case. If you use a document to contradict a witness in this way you must be conscious of the fact that you may be required to produce the document to the opponent and to the court. I refer you to section 45 of the Uniform Evidence Act.
42
1.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CFMEU [2008] FCA 678 (Finn J) at [119].
2.
MH McHugh QC (1985) 1 ABR 51. The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Rule in Browne v Dunn “Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike.” Alexander Pope
The so-called rule in Browne v Dunn is based on principles of fairness. It requires a cross-examining counsel to direct the attention of the witness to so much of the cross-examiner’s case as relates to that witness. The purpose of so doing is to give the witness an opportunity to address those issues by denial, explanation or other comment. The rule originated in the speech of Lord Herschell LC in the case of Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 60. In that case Lord Herschell said (at 70): My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of the case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with the witness. The rule was restated by Hunt J in Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cwth) (1983) 1 NSWLR 1 at 16 where he said: It has in my experience always been a rule of professional practice that, unless notice has already clearly been given by the cross-examiner of the crossexaminer’s intention to rely upon such matters, it is necessary to put to an opponent’s witness in cross examination the nature of the case upon which it is proposed to rely in contradiction of his evidence, particularly where that case relies upon inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the proceedings. Such a rule of practice is necessary both to give the witness the opportunity to deal with the other evidence, or the inferences to be drawn from it, and to allow the other party the opportunity to call evidence either to corroborate that explanation or to contradict the inference sought to be drawn. That rule of practice follows from what I have always believed to be rules of conduct which are essential to fair play at the trial and which are generally regarded as being established by the decision of the House of Lords in Browne v Dunn. Hunt J went on to observe: There are many reasons why it should be made clear, prior to final addresses and by way of cross-examination or otherwise, not only that the evidence of the witness is to be challenged but also how it is to be challenged. Firstly, it gives the witness the opportunity to deny the challenge on oath, to show his mettle under attack (so to speak), although this may often be of little value. Secondly, and far more significantly, it gives the party calling the witness the opportunity to call corroborative evidence which in the absence of such a challenge is unlikely to
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
43
have been called. Thirdly, it gives the witness the opportunity both to explain or to qualify his own evidence in the light of the contradiction of which warning has been given and also, if he can, to explain or to qualify the other evidence upon which the challenge is based. The rule applies to both criminal and civil proceedings. It applies as between all parties, for example, if one defendant is to suggest that another is not telling the truth then the obligation to comply with the rule arises. Just how you comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn will be a matter for consideration in light of the circumstances in each case. In some cases it will be necessary to baldly confront the witness with the contradictory material. In others you may wish to adopt a more subtle approach, taking the evidence that has fallen from the witness and expanding upon it in order to allow the witness to comment upon the information which you propose to use to suggest the evidence is unworthy of credit. For example, in a case where the witness gives evidence as to identity you may wish to examine him as to the prevailing circumstances which would reflect upon his capacity to provide a positive identification. You may suggest it was dark, or raining, or his vision was obscured by passing traffic and so on. It is not necessary to confront the witness and accuse him of being unworthy of credit or untruthful. Provided the basis for your attack on his credit is fairly put to him you have complied with the rule in Browne v Dunn. The rule has no application where the challenge to the evidence of the witness is clear from other circumstances. This may result from the pleadings or from the evidence led by the other side in the course of the case or, indeed, from the issues raised in the opening address. The rule will not apply where the story told by the witness is incredible and does not warrant serious challenge. However the rule is one relating to fairness and fairness must be assessed in all of the circumstances. As Lord Herschell went on to say: All I am saying is that it will not do to impeach the credibility of a witness upon a matter on which he has not had any opportunity of giving an explanation by reason of there having been no suggestion whatever in the course of the case that his story is not accepted. If the rule is not complied with various consequences may follow: the judge may, in an appropriate case, discharge a jury; a witness may have to be recalled; the failure may be the subject of adverse comment to the jury; in an extreme case the Tribunal may disregard the evidence because it was not tested by allowing the witness to comment upon it. In summary, if a court is to be invited to disbelieve a witness then the grounds upon which that submission is to be made should be put to the witness in cross-examination to enable the witness to offer any comment or explanation available to him. In Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367, Wells J observed that a failure to abide by the rule in Browne v Dunn might lead to the situation where issues of fact are not joined in the evidence. The two bodies of evidence led by the parties may
44
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
“serenely pass one another like two trains in the night.” In the same case, Wells J addressed the nature of the challenge that should be made to the evidence of a witness. He referred to cases where the contradictory material was not put fairly and squarely to the witness but rather was hinted at and then went on to say: Then what was sought to be done was that such answers as the witness was able to give with respect to the hinted imputation were used as the basis for an address to the jury inviting them to draw an inference that carried the imputation. I regard such a course of cross-examination and address as unfair. It represents the sort of conduct described by Alexander Pope in the well-known passage in which he condemned those who were willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike. I do not for one moment suggest that counsel should abandon the arts and fair devices of cross-examination. I am well aware that there are more ways of taking a fort than by frontal attack, but I also hold it to be a fundamental principle that, when all arts and devices of cross-examination have been exhausted for the purpose of testing whether a particular witness merits adverse criticism, then, at some stage, and in some fair manner, he should be given the opportunity of meeting the implication and answering it. It is in complying with the rule in Browne v Dunn that you most often hear counsel resort to the tired formula: “I put it to you” followed by a series of propositions. This is unfortunate and unproductive advocacy. That manner of putting a question will lead to only one response from the witness and that is a flat denial of the proposition. In approaching the matter in that way counsel is simply going through the motions and complying with the formalities. It gives no prospect of obtaining an admission or a qualification to the evidence already given. It provides no opportunity for positively assisting the case being presented. Rather it permits, even invites, the witness to emphatically and convincingly reject that part of the case for the other side. Issues raised in this way should have been dealt with during the course of the cross-examination in conjunction with other matters being explored with the witness.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
45
Cross-Examining the Expert “There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.” La Rochefoucauld (1747–1827)
One of the great challenges of advocacy is the cross-examination of an expert witness in relation to a matter arising in his or her field. As with all other areas of successful advocacy preparation is the key. When dealing with expert witnesses you have available to you advantages not always present in relation to other witnesses. In most (if not all) cases you will have received in advance of the trial details of the basis upon which expertise is claimed by the witness and you will also have a report or reports detailing the evidence that is proposed to be led from the witness. The claims to expertise will normally be in the form of detailed curriculum vitae (CV). The report of the expert will usually set out the information made available to the expert, followed by a description of his or her reasoning process and then the conclusions reached as to relevant matters. With this information available you are in a position to thoroughly prepare your cross-examination. To my mind the most efficient method of preparing for cross-examination of an expert witness is with the assistance of your own independent expert. That person should be sufficiently qualified and experienced to enable you to be informed of, and schooled in, the matters in relation to which evidence will be given. You should sit down with such a person and work your way through the field in relation to which expert testimony is to be called. By the time you get to your feet for the purpose of cross-examination you should be, so far as this be possible, sufficiently informed as to the field, and knowledgeable of the issues arising, as to be on an equal footing with the expert who is to be cross-examined. You will achieve this status by exhaustive preparation with the assistance of your own expert and by reading texts, expert papers and other relevant writings in relation to the matter. No matter how well prepared you are it will always be a difficult undertaking to match wits with an expert. You must therefore control the crossexamination and limit yourself and the witness to those areas where the evidence of the expert can be successfully challenged. In most cases there will be four areas in which you will concentrate your efforts at preparation. The first of those will be the acceptance or rejection of the claim to expertise. In many cases it will be obvious the person concerned is an expert and you can readily move on to the next area of consideration. However in some matters there may be doubt. Whilst a witness may have an impressive academic CV, this does not mean he or she has sufficient relevant
46
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
experience in the particular area in which opinion evidence is to be given to qualify as an expert. You should carefully examine the claimed expertise before making any concession that opinion evidence can be expressed. Once you are satisfied the witness is an expert, you need to look at other areas of potential challenge. One fruitful area is the information upon which the expert has based his or her opinion. In other words what the expert took to be the facts of the case. In many cases you will find that the opinion of an expert will be uncontentious. Rather it will be the material upon which the opinion is based that will be the source of contention. In nearly every case the expert will be informed as to the factual basis upon which his or her testimony is to be given. This information may be obtained from a letter of instruction from solicitors, from an inspection of the item or area concerned coupled with explanations provided by others at the scene, by information provided by a plaintiff or a representative of the plaintiff direct to the expert and so on. You should closely examine the basis upon which the expert has proceeded in order to draw his or her conclusions. No matter how eminent he or she may be, the opinion of the expert will be no better than the material upon which that opinion is based. You should therefore pay close attention to that material in order to consider the prospect that it may be undermined. This will involve a consideration of what has and has not been proved in the course of the hearing. Has the expert been invited to assume matters which are in contention or which cannot be established? In medical matters has a complete history been provided to the expert? Are there matters that have come out in the course of cross-examination of which the expert was unaware at the time of reaching his or her conclusions? The next area worthy of consideration is the reasoning process of the expert. Having accepted the factual substratum the expert then proceeds by various processes to reach an opinion. In this area it is likely to be essential for you to have assistance in determining whether that has been a legitimate process or whether some flaw can be identified. Even if no flaw can be identified or demonstrated it may be that concessions can be obtained from the witness to the effect that other approaches to the questions arising are open and may lead to differing results. The witness may only have addressed his or her pet theory. You may, by emphasising alternatives, significantly reduce the damage that the initial opinion of the expert would have caused to the case for your client. This approach to the cross-examination also applies to the formulation of the conclusions reached by the expert. It may be that different conclusions can be reached from the same facts and thought processes. Ultimately it will be a matter for the finder of fact as to what opinion is accepted. The tribunal is not bound to accept expert evidence and it may accept or reject the whole or part of that evidence in the same way as evidence of other witnesses. It is useful to remember that expert witnesses are a special class of witness.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
47
Generally speaking they are independent of the parties and they do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings. If they are independent in their thinking they may be of use to you in obtaining evidence which assists your case. There may be a number of matters you would put to the witness in order to obtain concessions that may assist your case. Obviously if you seek to use the witness in this way you will do so at an early time in the cross-examination and before you make any challenge to the expertise of the witness or the opinion of the witness. You would undertake such a task by approaching the expert “as an ally who wishes, with you, to seek the truth.”1 It will be a rare circumstance in which you would ever aggressively attack an expert witness. Given that such witnesses are supposedly independent and expert there will be little opportunity to suggest the witness is untruthful or misleading or guilty of other similar shortcomings. If made, an attack of that kind is likely to lead to feelings of sympathy for the witness. It is far better to adopt a methodical and measured approach to the cross-examination in most cases. Such an approach will be directed to demonstrating that the witness was not fully informed by those who engaged him, or was provided with misleading information, or adopted a flawed approach or did not consider or adequately consider alternatives.
1.
48
Evidence and Advocacy, W A N Wells p188.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Cross-Examining through an Interpreter The requirement for counsel to cross-examine witnesses through interpreters is an increasing one. In the not so distant past there existed an attitude of having to “make do” without an interpreter when a witness had either no grasp, or an inadequate grasp, of the English language. There was a tendency to “make do” with whatever interpreting skills may have been readily available. A graphic example of this was revealed in the re-enactment of the trial of Tuckiar 1 in previous Law Week celebrations. In more recent times there has been an increasing recognition of the desirability of ensuring that the witness fully understands the proceedings and is able to give evidence through an interpreter. This involves determining when an interpreter is necessary and ensuring that an appropriately qualified interpreter is available. It is no longer satisfactory to “make do”. The need for qualified interpreters in the legal system and, indeed, in many other areas of daily life in our community, has been the subject of much discussion within our community in recent times. The recognition of the importance of employing skilled interpreters has led to a wider range of interpreters becoming available and to those interpreters demonstrating vastly improved skills in this very important undertaking. The conduct of a cross-examination through an interpreter is not an easy task even where the interpreter is highly skilled. The process allows the witness a substantially greater time to consider and formulate answers to questions without giving the appearance of prevarication. There is also greater opportunity to ‘misunderstand’ questions or to provide nonresponsive answers than is the case where no interpreter is employed. The escape routes for witnesses are greater when an interpreter is used than when there is direct cross-examination. To effectively cross-examine such a witness it is necessary for you to carefully prepare. You will wish to limit the ability of the witness to use the intervention of the interpreter as an aid to defeating or reducing the effectiveness of your cross-examination. To this end you need to have a clear plan for the cross-examination in mind prior to commencing that process. Your questions should be formulated in such a way as to require of the witness direct answers. It is desirable your questions themselves be short, sharp, clear and direct. Each question should be limited to one simple point. The language adopted should be plain and simple. Wherever possible the form of the question should limit the witness to a concise response. In the event that you cannot avoid asking a lengthy question containing a number of propositions you should break the question up into manageable
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
49
components. Have the interpreter translate each part as you proceed. When the last part of the question is put to the witness you will be entitled to expect an immediate response. Be careful to ensure that the interpreter interprets all that is said by the witness even if the witness is simply seeking clarification of the question. It is not for the interpreter to clarify the question; that is your role. If the answer provided by the witness is non-responsive then you should return to the question. One approach is to enquire whether the witness understands the question and, when that has been established, invite the witness to answer the question. If there is any doubt about the understanding of the witness then you will rephrase the question, again using simple terms, and using a form of question that requires a straightforward answer. In the course of your cross-examination I recommend you closely watch the witness at all times in order to pick up any information available through the facial expressions or body language of the witness. The reactions of the witness may suggest an understanding of the question which is not revealed in the answer or a discomfort with a proposition being put which leads to a non-responsive answer. If the reactions of the witness may not have been obvious to the Tribunal, you may wish to build your observation into following questions. For example, your next question may start: “You showed surprise when I asked my question…” or “You looked to where the plaintiff is seated when I asked my question…” When asking questions and when listening to answers to questions the focus of your attention should always be upon the witness and not upon the interpreter. It is from the witness that you will obtain clues as to any discomfort likely to be of use in the continued cross-examination. If possible, it is desirable for you to have the assistance of your own interpreter during the course of evidence in chief and cross-examination. The choice of words used by the interpreter in both English and the language of the witness may be subject to differences of opinion. The adoption of slightly different expressions by the interpreter may lead to different meanings being attributed to the evidence of the witness. In the absence of assistance you will have no cross check as to whether the true sense of the question or answer is being conveyed or, indeed, whether you would be better advised to rephrase your question. If a witness is to be cross-examined through an interpreter, it is essential you make appropriate allowance for that in your case preparation. 1.
50
Tuckiar v The King (1934) 52 CLR 33
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Re-Examination – Part 1 “Re-examination—the putting Humpty Dumpty together again.” Sir Frank Lockward 1
The decision whether or not to re-examine will often involve you in a very delicate balancing act. In reaching your conclusion you will need to consider the impact of the cross-examination in the context of your case strategy. Even though there may have been damage to your witness in the course of cross-examination, if that damage does not have a negative impact upon your case strategy, you should not re-examine. If damage has occurred then you will need to determine how serious that damage is and whether it can be rectified. If the witness has been shown to be totally unreliable or irretrievably mistaken then you may be better advised to walk away from the wreckage. Any attempt to retrieve the position will highlight the deficiencies and may worsen the situation. However, if it is possible to explain apparent flaws in significant parts of the evidence of the witness revealed in crossexamination you may wish to embark upon re-examination. The scope of re-examination is not as limited as is sometimes thought by advocates appearing in the courts. The learned authors of Cross on Evidence have this to say (Looseleaf edition par17605): The purpose of re-examination is not merely to remove ambiguities and uncertainties, but is allowed wherever an answer in cross-examination would, unless supplemented or explained, leave the court with an impression of the facts, whether facts in issue or facts relating to credibility, which is capable of being construed unfavourably to the party calling the witness and which represents a distortion or incomplete account of the truth as the witness is able to present it. In considering whether a topic can be addressed in re-examination it is open to the court to look beyond the particular question and to consider the information conveyed by the witness in the context of the whole of the proceedings. The purpose of re-examination is to avoid the prospect of misunderstanding, misinterpretation or the giving of a wrong impression. It is also worthy of note that, whilst re-examination is limited to matters arising out of the cross-examination, new matters may be introduced into evidence with the leave of the court. Whether or not to allow the introduction of fresh material will be a matter within the discretion of the court. When such leave is given it will be usual for the court to provide the other party with the opportunity to cross-examine upon the new material.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
51
In determining whether to re-examine you should consider the importance of any successful attack in cross-examination upon the credit of your witness. If the credit of the witness has been shaken but only in relation to minor or peripheral matters you may think it is better to leave re-examination alone. Any attempt to shore up the credit of the witness in those peripheral areas is likely to serve to highlight the issues you raise and to do so to the detriment of the overall case. However if there has been an unfair attack upon your witness in an area that is important to your case then providing the witness with the opportunity to explain can lead to a restoration of the credit and/or reliability of the witness and, depending upon the circumstances, may lead to the evidence of the witness being accorded heightened importance. If you are able to demonstrate the attack was unfair, this may also have a negative impact upon the case presented by your opponent. In such a case re-examination can be a potent weapon. Having determined the damage done to your case in cross-examination is sufficiently important to call for a response you then need to consider whether you have the necessary information to provide that response. Obviously it would be unwise to endeavour to repair damage caused to your case without knowing the basis upon which you can proceed to do so. If you have no idea why the witness has said a certain thing it would be imprudent to blindly pursue the matter. You would bear the substantial risk that things will go from terrible to devastating. To re-examine by asking questions to which you do not know the answer or, at the very least, do not have a confident expectation of what the answer will be, is to undertake a dangerous exercise. I recommend a very cautious approach to re-examination. Generally speaking the issue of whether to re-examine only arises in the course of cross-examination and is difficult to anticipate. It is therefore unusual for counsel to be adequately prepared for the eventuality. This necessitates the making of your decision on short notice and in pressured circumstances. A thorough knowledge of the case, an understanding of the nature of your witness and a carefully developed case strategy will assist you to make the hurried decision that circumstances will force upon you. However, if you are in doubt then do not re-examine. In most cases it will not be possible to successfully put Humpty Dumpty together again.
1.
52
Quoted in Advocacy in Practice: Glissan and Tilmouth, Australian Criminal Trial Directions, at 6.500.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Re-Examination – Part 2 “...It is always probable that something improbable will happen.” Logan E Bleckley
In determining whether to re-examine, there may be signals from the witness that assist you. If, in the course of giving evidence under cross-examination, the witness indicates that he or she may wish to say more on a particular subject, you should be able to determine from the context whether that will be of assistance to you. The message may not be as clear as a remark by the witness that he or she wishes to explain. The witness may be cut off by cross-examining counsel or that counsel may deftly leap into a pause in the answer asking another question directing attention away from a sensitive topic. You will need to be paying close attention to what is said by your witness and the body language that can be observed in your witness when he or she is being cross-examined. You should always be alive to the prospect the witness may have more to offer or may be seeking to explain something further. Having made the decision to re-examine a witness it is then necessary to determine how and to what extent you will do so. I have already observed that the decision you make is likely to be taken in both hurried and pressured circumstances. In determining what to ask, and how to ask it, you will need to call upon the fruits of your detailed preparation for trial and the case strategy which resulted from that process. It is by reference to your case strategy that you will determine firstly if you need to re-examine and secondly what form the re-examination will take. When you embark upon your re-examination you will have in mind clearly defined areas to be covered. You should have a clearly defined purpose. The questions you ask should be carefully formulated in order to contain the exercise to the desired areas and the fulfilment of the identified purpose. In proceeding to re-examine you must bear in mind the nature of your witness. Should your witness be a person who is hesitant or uncertain or lacking in confidence you will not want that person to feel they have somehow failed the test of cross-examination with a consequence that they seek to overcompensate by giving you responses which are thought to be helpful but which may be overly helpful and therefore of limited assistance. You do not want the witness to be providing any convenient explanation that occurs to him or her.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
53
It follows that in the questioning process you should not demonstrate by word or demeanour any concern or displeasure with the evidence that has fallen from the witness in the course of cross-examination. It is better to approach re-examination in a low key and matter of fact way. In re-examination you are not entitled to ask leading questions. However, you are able to take the witness to the matter that requires elaboration, explanation or qualification. You may do this by referring the witness to the topic to be addressed and then, as best you are able, reminding him or her of the answer given. Such an approach helps to focus attention on the precise area with which you wish to deal. For example, you may say to the witness: “My learned friend asked you some questions about the argument between yourself and Mrs Brown. In your answer you said Mrs Brown appeared nervous. Could you explain what it was about Mrs Brown that led to that conclusion?’” It is important you restate the question and answer as precisely as possible. If you need to summarise a portion of the evidence then you should do so with great care to ensure your summary is fair and not able to be objected to by the cross-examiner. You do not want your witness to be distracted or upset by a heated objection from your opponent where that can be avoided. When you have identified to the witness the topic about which you wish to ask further questions you should ensure you avoid leading questions. The asking of a leading question, even if it is not objected to, will result in less weight being attached to the answer in an area likely to be sensitive and important to your case. If you do ask a leading question and it is objected to the effect of the poor framing of the question by you may lead to the whole re-examination exercise being rendered ineffective because the witness simply adopts the thrust of your inept question. This is an area in which great care must be taken. In the Northern Territory there has been a developing trend for counsel to seek an adjournment at the end of cross-examination in order to obtain instructions in relation to matters raised in the course of cross-examination. Such an adjournment will not always be given. Before seeking such an adjournment you should consider what the impact of such an application may be. Obviously the taking of an adjournment will further emphasise the negative potency of any matter that is subsequently raised in re-examination. It may serve to expose and highlight the concern you inwardly feel about the evidence given. If you take an adjournment and then find the instructions you obtain do not permit you to re-visit the topic and provide clarification or explanation from the witness then that will obviously further serve to emphasise the problem you have with the evidence. If you do obtain instructions that permit you to re-visit the area, the fact you have had access to the witness and the opportunity to raise with the witness the subject that requires clarification or explanation may lead to the tribunal of fact being less willing to accept or accord full value to any answer the witness may give
54
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
to your questions. It is likely the tribunal will not regard the evidence as being the free and untutored response of the witness. It follows that you should only seek an adjournment to obtain instructions prior to re-examination if you regard it as absolutely necessary to do so. In your re-examination you should exercise care to ensure you do not venture into areas where you already have satisfactory evidence from the witness. Should you touch upon such an area you may find the witness feels the need to further explain or to clarify some answer already given and in so doing undermine the favourable impact of the evidence already obtained. The asking of questions in re-examination therefore needs to be carefully confined to the area of concern. You will achieve that by your preliminary questions in which you identify the context of the questions you are going to ask and in which you will seek explanation or clarification.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
55
The Unfavourable Witness “That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude.” Alexander Haig
What do you do if, in the course of presenting evidence in chief, you are confronted by a witness who does not give evidence in accordance with his or her proof? Moreover what do you do if a witness does not make a genuine attempt to recollect a set of facts? Sometimes that will occur because the witness has had a change of mind or now recollects matters differently. However in some cases it will occur because the witness is not making a genuine attempt to give reliable evidence. Section 38 of the Uniform Evidence Act deals with circumstances in which a party may discredit his or her own witness. Under this provision, you can seek leave to cross-examine as to: 1. unfavourable evidence given by the witness; 2. a matter of which the witness may reasonably be supposed to have knowledge, and about which the witness appears not to be making a genuine attempt to give evidence in examination in chief; or 3. whether a witness made a prior inconsistent statement. This section also allows an advocate who is questioning a witness to apply to cross-examine the witness on matters relevant only to the credibility of the witness. It should be noted that these provisions create a much lower threshold than the hostile witness provisions applicable under the former Evidence Act. An unfavourable witness can be a very dangerous witness for your case and such a witness will have to be treated with extreme care. If the witness is identified as being unfavourable prior to the commencement of the hearing, you may wish to explore avenues to avoid calling that witness and subjecting your client’s case to the danger posed by the witness. However, in some cases you may determine you have no choice other than to call the witness, for example, because it is only through that witness something can be established. Once you have determined that a witness can and should be found unfavourable, you should give notice of your application at the earliest opportunity. Although this is not required, a failure to do so is a factor the court may take into account in considering your application.1 You would only make such an application if you considered it necessary in order to properly present the case for your client.
56
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
If the matter is before a jury any such application should be made in the absence of the jury. If you are granted leave, your cross-examination of the unfavourable witness would usually occur straight after the evidence in chief, unless the court orders otherwise. Leave to cross-examine will usually not be granted if the application is made after cross-examination, especially where an advocate could have predicted the unfavourable evidence by observing the witness’s evidence in chief.2 If unfavourable evidence which could not have been predicted comes to light during the course of cross-examination, the court will consider the extent to which granting leave would be unfair to a party or a witness.3 Leave will usually be granted where the unfavourable evidence could not have been predicted.4 If the witness does not admit he or she has made a prior inconsistent statement, you are unable to adduce evidence of the statement other than from the witness unless, in cross-examination, you have: •
informed the witness of enough of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement to enable the witness to identify the statement; and
•
drawn the witness’s attention to the parts of the statement that are inconsistent with the witness’s testimony.5
This provision does not preclude you from adducing evidence of a prior inconsistent statement in circumstances where the witness admits to making the statement.6 If the witness denies having made a prior inconsistent statement, and you have complied with the above requirements, then it will be necessary for you to prove the statement. In those circumstances you should ask that the witness be stood down whilst you call such evidence as is available to you in order to prove the making of the prior inconsistent statement.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
57
If the witness adopts the statement but provides a credible explanation as to why it was made (e.g. ”I was forced to make the statement” or ”I was misled” etc.) and the witness maintains the evidence now being given before the court is the truth, then you will need to consider whether your application is worthy of pursuit. It should be noted there is no prohibition at common law or under the Uniform Evidence Act on the calling of evidence from subsequent witnesses that contradicts the testimony given by an earlier witness for the party. This will occur in many cases where witnesses have different recollections of the order of events or the precise nature of what occurred. To do so is not to discredit the earlier witness in the relevant sense.7
1.
R v Ashton [2003] TASSC 140 at [27]; Randall v The Queen [2004] TASSC 42 at [27].
2.
R v Mansour [1996] NSWSC (19 November 1996) (Levine J).
3.
Uniform Evidence Act, s 192.
4.
R v Pantoja (No 1) [1996] NSWSC (30 October 1996).
5.
Uniform Evidence Act, s 43(2).
6.
Aslett v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 49 (Barr J, with Spigelman CJ and Howie J agreeing).
7.
R v M (1980) 2 NSWLR 195 at 210.
58
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Child Witness “Children are works in progress—they continue to be works in progress even up to the age of seventeen and eighteen.” Dr Anne Graffam Walker
Fortunately for most of us, the need to lead evidence from a child or to undertake the cross-examination of a child is not a common experience. However, the need does arise on occasion. When that occurs special care is required in preparing for the evidence of the child witness and in dealing with the witness in the courtroom. The approach you take to a child witness will vary depending upon the nature of the case and, importantly, upon the age and maturity of the child. Obviously a child of 13 or 14 years of age will require quite different considerations from a child who is seven or eight years old. The younger the child the greater the need for care. It is important to bear in mind the differences between children and adults. Depending upon the child, he or she may have an inadequate grasp of numbers and time. If there is a course of conduct over a period of time there may be a problem with establishing the correct sequence of events. The witness may have a different or unusual view of what is important when giving evidence. He or she may employ unusual descriptions of objects or everyday matters. The use of language will be different. If you are to lead evidence from a child there is an obligation upon you to do all you can to ensure the evidence of the child is given in as clear and forthright a manner as possible. You will need to take steps to ensure the child is not overwhelmed by the circumstance of giving evidence. This will involve doing your best to explain, at a level the child can understand, what is to occur in the courtroom, who each of the players are, the importance of telling the truth and, in general terms, letting the child know what is expected of him or her. Remember the child is likely to be in a room full of adults who are strangers or, at least, in the unusual circumstances of a vulnerable witness. You should endeavour to ensure the child is comfortable with you as the advocate and that you have an understanding of each other and, if it is possible, a rapport with each other. You will need to spend time with the child. It is important to remember you are dealing with a child whose level of experience and level of understanding is likely to be quite different from that of yourself and all other persons in the courtroom. Indeed the younger the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
59
child the greater is likely to be the gulf between the position of the child and the position of other persons in the courtroom. Whether you are leading evidence from a child or cross-examining a child you should be conscious of the need to formulate your questions in language that can be readily understood by the child. It is preferable that each of your questions deals with one issue and the question be phrased in simple terms using ordinary words which a child of that age can readily understand. It is necessary to choose your language carefully and to avoid convoluted questions. When dealing with a child witness it is necessary to take special care to avoid being at cross-purposes with the child. It is easy for confusion to arise and for misunderstandings to occur. Dr Anne Graffam Walker gives an example of a young child at a childcare centre complaining that a person had been “touching my privates”. Subsequently the “privates” turned out to be toy soldiers. You should listen carefully to the answers provided by the child witness to ensure misunderstandings are avoided. In cross-examining a child you should, in almost all cases, avoid direct confrontation. You should certainly avoid expressions of anger or exasperation and any conduct of your own which may lead the tribunal of fact to be concerned that you are in some way unnecessarily pressuring or intimidating the witness. Conduct that would normally be quite acceptable in relation to an adult witness may have a quite different impact with a child witness. A cross-examination that causes unnecessary distress to a child witness, especially a young child witness, is likely to be an ineffective cross-examination. Indeed it is likely to have adverse consequences for your case. You should be patient with the witness. There is no reason why you should not be firm with the witness but that firmness should be reflected in questions which require an answer without a situation of open confrontation between counsel and the witness arising.
60
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
In cross-examination it is important to ensure the child and you understand each other. It is of no use to you to conduct what you regard as an effective cross-examination only to have the child explain in re-examination that he or she understood a word used by you in a quite different sense from that which one would expect. If there is any doubt as to the child understanding what is being put or as to the meaning the child is seeking to convey in his or her answers, you should explore the matter further to avoid that doubt. Often with young witnesses there is a concern on the part of the crossexaminer that the child has been coached by an adult in preparing for the giving of evidence. It is most unlikely any legal practitioner would undertake such an exercise. However parents or guardians or adult friends may do so. If you are counsel who is to lead evidence from a child witness you should take very great care to ensure you do not influence the child in any way that will lead the child to express him or herself in a way which misrepresents the impact of their evidence. You should endeavour to ensure no-one else influences the child in such a way. Cross-examining counsel may wish to explore with the child witness the issue of the influence of others. In many cases ideas are planted by trusted adults. Those ideas may be deliberately planted in order to obtain some advantage. In other cases the adult may plant the ideas without consciously intending to do so or in the belief that something ‘must have’ happened and in an endeavour to ensure the ‘truth’ emerges. An exploration of the discussions a child witness has had with others may prove a fruitful source of challenge to the reliability of the witness. Dealing with child witnesses requires a great deal of sensitivity and care. It is important to remember that children fall within a special class of witness and need to be treated accordingly.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
61
The Aboriginal Witness – Part 1 “A client or a witness who is misunderstood through no fault of theirs is ill-served by the legal system.” Frank Brennan SJ AO
Aboriginal people constitute a significant part of the population of the Northern Territory. Many Aboriginal people have English as a second or third language. Often the English they speak is different from that spoken by other speakers of English in Australia. They are also likely to have ties to, and be affected by, their own cultures and traditions. Special difficulties and special considerations apply to such people when they become involved in litigation. It follows that careful preparation is needed for the presentation of, or challenge to, the evidence of such a person in proceedings before a court or tribunal. The advocate needs to be aware of linguistic and cultural differences and accommodate them in the preparation for, and presentation of, the case. Mildren J formerly of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has written on this topic in recent times. I commend to you his paper entitled: Redressing the Imbalance Against Aboriginals in the Criminal Justice System.1 What follows includes reference to issues addressed in the work of Dr Diana Eades,2 the paper of Mildren J and to the sources referred to therein. There is a wide range of issues which impact upon Aboriginal people when they find themselves involved in proceedings before courts and tribunals. For present purposes I am concerned only with the narrower field of the presentation of the evidence of Aboriginal witnesses and any challenge that may be made to such evidence. Obviously there are many matters which are likely to be relevant to your preparation for a case involving Aboriginal witnesses. This will be so whether you are to lead evidence from an Aboriginal witness or cross-examine such a witness or perform both functions in the course of a hearing. Whilst each witness will be different from the next there are some factors that commonly occur in relation to Aboriginal witnesses. It follows that these are matters of which you will need to be aware and in relation to which appropriate consideration will need to be given to enable you to effectively carry out your function as an advocate. In the course of your preparation, the first matter for consideration will be whether you require the services of an interpreter. Obviously this must be considered at an early time. You should be aware that obtaining an appropriate interpreter may not be an easy task. There are numerous Aboriginal languages
62
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
in the Northern Territory and the availability of competent interpreters in many of those languages cannot be assumed. Even when an appropriately qualified interpreter is available difficulties may arise. The kinship relationship between the interpreter and the witness may inhibit or otherwise impact upon the answers given. The gender of the witness and the interpreter may be significant. A wide variety of other cultural factors may arise. It is always desirable for an advocate to meet with a witness prior to the hearing to allow the witness to become comfortable with the advocate and also to allow the advocate to fully explain what is to occur. It is not hard to imagine the impact of a judge and counsel in wig and gown, in a room dominated by non-Aboriginal faces, upon a person who has not previously been exposed to our system. Add to that the unfamiliar and ritualistic procedures that take place in our courts and tribunals along with the use of time-honoured, but for most people quite unusual language (“may it please your Honour”), and the whole experience may be quite overwhelming. The more you are able to assist the witness to feel comfortable with the process and to have an understanding of what is to occur, the greater the prospect of an effective presentation of the evidence. It is also desirable to spend time with the witness in the process of obtaining instructions. Such witnesses are often shy and lacking in confidence in the unusual circumstances and surroundings which confront them. It may take some time and more than one conference before you can be assured you have the complete information the witness is able to provide and that the witness has an understanding of what is to occur. In leading evidence and in cross-examining you will need to be conscious of the language used by the witness. Ordinary English words may be used by Aboriginal English speakers in a way which is different from what may be described as standard English. Further it is unwise to assume a particular Aboriginal English speaking pattern will be applicable to any particular witness. The witnesses will come from a wide range of backgrounds with differing levels of education, skills with the English language, understanding of the processes involved and acceptance of those processes. Clearly each witness must be individually assessed. The earlier this assessment takes place and the more thorough it is the greater is the likelihood you will be able to anticipate difficulties and plan a way around them. Dr Eades points out that you should not assume an Aboriginal witness is speaking standard English. The answers “I don’t know” and “I don’t remember” may mean what they convey or they may be a statement about the inappropriateness of the question.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
63
There are many examples of how the different use of language may lead to confusion and possibly serious error. John Coldrey (previously Coldrey J of the Supreme Court of Victoria) gave an example of difficulties that may arise by reference to a record of interview 3. I set out the passage: Policeman:
Did you want to kill Lillian?
Kennedy:
Yeah.
Policeman:
You wanted to kill her. Did you want to kill her properly or kill her a little bit?
Kennedy:
Little bit.
Policeman:
A little bit?
Kennedy:
Yeah.
Policeman:
Where did you want to kill her?
Kennedy:
Leg, leg.
Policeman:
In the leg, you wanted to kill her in the leg?
Kennedy:
Yeah.
Here the expression “to kill” is used synonymously with the verb “to hit”. This policeman, knowing that to be the case, is able to accommodate it and fairly represent the intent of the accused person. Had the policeman asked only the first question the true meaning of the exchange would have been lost, possibly with significant adverse consequences for the accused. When the witness gives evidence it is obviously important to ensure you pay careful attention to what is being said and that you be alert to prevent misunderstanding from arising or continuing. You should be alive to the prospect that an incorrect meaning or some ambiguity may arise from the choice of words adopted either in your question or in the answer received.
1.
Published in Foreign Linguistics; The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law Vol 6 No.1, 1999. Another version of the paper is to be found in the Criminal Law Journal (1997) Vol 21 at p7. Both copies are available in the Supreme Court Library.
2.
Dr Eades: Aboriginal English and the Law (1992), Queensland Law Society Inc.
3.
Coldrey J (1987) Aboriginals and the Criminal Courts. In K. Hazelhurst (Ed.): Ivory Scales: Black Australia and the Law, NSW University Press
64
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Aboriginal Witness – Part 2 “Many…Aboriginal people are not biculturally competent and as with many of the non-Aboriginal people involved, they may not be aware of…important communication difficulties.” Dr Diana Eades
Some areas in which problems may arise in relation to language and communication include: the misuse of gender for pronouns; attributing gender to inanimate objects; the omission of plural inflexions from nouns; confusion as to tense; and imprecision, inconsistency and inaccuracy as to distances, numbers and time.1 For example, Aboriginal witnesses are unlikely to refer to specific numbers of people; they are more likely to refer to a “mob” or a “big mob” or, alternatively, to list the persons present. They are unlikely to be precise as to distances but rather refer to a “long way” or a “little bit long way” or some other imprecise expression. Similarly with time, the expression a “long time” may mean minutes, months or years. It is necessary to devise mechanisms to deal with these problems. Numbers may be established by having the witness identify the people present. Distances may be obtained by reference to concrete examples in the court room. Time may be established by reference to some other event, the time of which is known. You may need to be inventive and resourceful in order to obtain reliable information. In addition it is important to be aware that, on occasions, communication by the witness may be more physical than verbal, e.g. by use of small movements of the eyes, the lips or the head. These movements may be easy to miss. Other matters of which you should be aware include the prospect that the witness will avoid direct eye contact—not because he or she is not being frank, as may be the case with some witnesses, but rather because it may be considered rude for eye contact to occur. There may be lengthy periods of silence or a refusal to answer some questions. There may be many reasons for this other than deliberate evasion. It may not be possible to determine why the witness has declined to answer questions and you will need to be in a position, so far as is possible, to anticipate areas which may give rise to this “retreat into silence”. You should also have strategies in place to deal with the situation if it should arise. This may involve leaving the topic and returning to it at a later time. If the reason for the silence is a cultural matter you may need to explore this outside the court room and then, when you are better informed, deal with it in a culturally sensitive way. Dr Diana Eades points out that “silence and
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
65
waiting till people are ready to give information are also central to Aboriginal ways of seeking any substantial information.” 1 A very important skill to develop, and this particularly applies to crossexamination, is the use of non-leading questions. In advocacy courses and advocacy texts the desirability of asking only leading questions in cross-examination is emphasised. However in my opinion quite different considerations apply with many Aboriginal witnesses. In many instances the seeking of information by the use of direct questions will be regarded by an Aboriginal witness as quite inappropriate. Further, the asking of a leading question is likely to be met with what has been termed “gratuitous concurrence”. The Aboriginal witness may respond to the leading question in a way the witness believes the questioner wants. That generally means giving assent to the proposition put by the questioner. Dr Eades makes the following observations in relation to gratuitous concurrence: Aboriginal speakers of English and traditional languages often agree with whatever is being asked, thinking that they will get out of trouble more quickly. The agreement is made regardless of either an understanding of the question or a belief about the truth or falsity of the proposition being questioned. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that the Aboriginal person agreed with the proposition. This pattern of agreement, known as ‘gratuitous concurrence’ is particularly common where a considerable number of ‘yes-no’ questions are being asked, the situation with both police and courtroom questioning. Whatever may be the reason for the response the situation is that gratuitous concurrence is a recurring problem in relation to the evidence of Aboriginal witnesses. Whilst superficially concurrence may suit your client’s case, in the end result it will not. The weight to be attached to such responses will be either nil or negligible. Indeed it is possible the court will interfere if questions are put to Aboriginal witnesses in a way which leads to gratuitous concurrence. This is because such evidence will have no probative value and be of no assistance to the court. If the questions are allowed the advocate may anticipate that the jury will be informed that the answers are unhelpful and why. If there is no jury present the court or tribunal may choose to ignore the answers on the same basis. A more skilful cross-examination will employ concise non-leading questions, simple in form and containing only one idea. Questions should not be lengthy, convoluted or grammatically complex. For example, they should not include double negatives or put a series of alternatives. They should avoid using legal or other formal language. This is not an easy approach for the advocate to master and, of course, will often run counter to the advice contained in text books on advocacy and delivered in advocacy workshops. However in many cases it may be the only effective way to challenge the evidence of an Aboriginal witness.
66
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
None of this prevents an Aboriginal witness being challenged and challenged vigorously. What it ensures is the product of the exercise has value and can be used with force in the final presentation of the case at the time of the closing address. Whether you are to lead the evidence of an Aboriginal witness or to crossexamine that person there are many factors to consider in your preparation. Difficulties with language abound. Cultural influences may be important. The effective advocate will endeavour to ensure that he or she is as informed as possible in order to identify the problem areas and to create strategies to avoid them.
1.
Dr Eades: Aboriginal English and the Law (1992), Queensland Law Society Inc.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
67
Objections to Evidence “I’m not indecisive. Am I indecisive?” Jim Scheibel
The making of an objection to evidence may call for a difficult exercise of judgment. The question “do I?” or “don’t I?” must be answered in an instant. Failure to object quickly is to allow the objectionable material to be aired and often to make any objection redundant. On the other hand an objection made quickly and without thought for the consequences, even if successful, may lead to an unnecessary emphasis upon the information to which objection is taken. It must be remembered that the information may come before the court in other ways e.g. by the rephrasing of a badly framed question or through another witness. The fact that objection was taken may indicate to the court a special sensitivity on your part to the disclosure of the information and serve to highlight it. The prospect that an objection may be tactically unsound will be greater when the tribunal of fact is a jury rather than a judge. Whilst a judge is trained to ignore or put to one side information that comes before the court in an inadmissible form, it is not hard to envisage members of a jury having difficulty in doing the same. Similarly, a judge can be expected not to speculate as to why counsel may have been concerned to exclude inadmissible material but counsel may have a greater concern when a jury is involved. How a jury may react is not so predictable. Where counsel has made vigorous objection to the introduction of some evidence the jury may wonder why. If the objection is successful the jury may be concerned that the advocate was seeking to keep from them information relevant to the decision that has to be made. Whilst the judge will give the jury directions as to what may and may not be considered, there will be a concern the jury will be left wondering what was so important that led to the objection being made. It may be that the speculation of the jury will be even more adverse for your client than the information excluded. There will be no way of knowing what, if any, impact the objection had. It follows from the above that, in considering whether to object, it is necessary for counsel to make a quick decision and, where that decision is to object, to do so immediately. One source of guidance in the making of the appropriate decision will come from reference to the case strategy developed in your preparation. As I have observed on many occasions, all decisions relating to your conduct of the case should be guided by your case strategy. By reference to the case strategy an immediate and informed assessment can be made as to the importance
68
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
of the material to which objection is taken. If you are confident the answer to an objectionable question will not provide information inconsistent with your case strategy, or that a witness straying into irrelevant material in a non-responsive answer to a question will not impact upon your case strategy, then you may prefer to let the matter go. If you are concerned there is no immediate problem but there may be an ongoing danger, then it may be preferable to allow the information to be provided by the witness and for you to then point out to the court that the question was objectionable or the information provided was irrelevant. You may then ask that your opponent not repeat the error or that he or she maintains control of the witness in future. In this way you make your point without being seen to be anxious to keep information from the jury. If further objection is called for the jury will be more likely to understand and accept the basis for it. However, if you are concerned the information emerging is inconsistent with, or undermining of, your case strategy then you will quickly and firmly object. It may be necessary for you to interrupt or, indeed, talk over the witness to ensure the objectionable material is not introduced before you have a chance to record and explain the objection. Of course, in many cases the position will be less than clear and the decision whether or not to object will be based upon your instincts rather than any fully considered assessment of the situation. You may be quite unsure whether or not the information called for will be inconsistent with your case strategy. A difficult exercise of judgment on your part will be called for. The nature of the evidence likely to be lead and what may be necessary to exclude is something you will address in your preparation. The prospect that the other party may wish to introduce material that is inadmissible is something to be considered at that time. You may be able to reduce the stress of having to make some decisions on the run by careful preparation. Unfortunately, it is unlikely you will be able to anticipate all, or even most, of the matters for objection which will emerge in a trial and you will be called upon to make important decisions as to whether to object to evidence in less than ideal circumstances.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
69
Unnecessary Objections to Evidence “I often regretted my speech, never my silence.” Anonymous
In the course of a trial it is important you do not take unnecessary objections. Counsel who persists in making unnecessary objections will test the patience of the court. If a jury is present you may alienate the people you most want to keep on side. It is likely that all present in court would rather “‘get on with it” than deal with interminable objections to matters which, ultimately, may be of little or no moment in the proceedings. I have previously discussed the desirability of counsel developing a relationship with the jury in which the jury felt trust in the advocate. I noted it would be unhelpful to your client’s cause if the jury felt antagonistic or distrustful towards you for whatever reason. With the making of frequent objections, and with the consequent interruptions to the flow of evidence, you are unlikely to enhance your relationship with the jury. If it be the case that your objections are regularly overruled, or upheld, but with an air of frustration by the bench, you are likely to find your relationship with the jury deteriorating. You run the risk that the jury will regard you as deliberately disruptive and, through you, your client may be seen as not willing to allow the full story to be told. In any defended case you will see many examples of objectionable questions being allowed to pass without comment. In most cases the counsel leading the witness in his or her evidence in chief will, for a time, be allowed to lead the evidence by asking leading questions without objection. That will continue until a sensitive area is reached, at which time counsel will be expected to ask properly formulated questions and, if the witness tends to give non-responsive answers, to better control the witness. In my view it is prudent to object only when necessary. This may be when your opponent continually offends against the rules of evidence or when an objectionable question is asked, the answer to which is likely to be damaging to your case. The advice of Glissan & Tilmouth1 is that you should “object only when you have something to gain by objecting and then only when you are confident you can make the objection good.” In determining whether you have “something to gain” it is necessary to stand back from the immediate question and the potential answer and make your decision in the context of the whole of the case. It is not enough that the gain you may obtain is an immediate and small victory but, rather, you need to determine whether you have something to gain when looking at the case as a whole. You must keep your eye on the big picture.
70
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
If it becomes necessary to make an objection you should tailor the objection to suit the circumstances. If the matter is proceeding before a judge alone then an objection to the effect: “I object as the question invites a hearsay answer” may be sufficient. If you are before a jury it may be preferable to build a short explanation into the objection, designed to indicate you are reluctant to object and only do so because your opponent is not obeying the rules. For example you may object by saying: “As my learned friend is perfectly aware the question asked is quite inappropriate. It invites a speculative response which this witness is not able to give”. Not all objections will create the perception you are trying to keep something from the court; some objections are designed to assist and ensure misunderstandings do not occur. The observations I have made as to the dangers of objecting would not apply to objections to questions that are unintelligible, compound questions (i.e. asking two questions in the form of one), questions that are too general or which call for the witness to speculate or provide an opinion. Objections to such questions are less likely to cause you harm and, if you are correct, may avoid problems in the evidence. In relation to such questions it is still necessary to ensure you are not seen to be unduly interfering and you should limit your objections to those instances in which it is really necessary. In the event you are the counsel leading evidence from a witness and your opponent makes an objection it is necessary to consider how you respond to that objection. In determining your response you should bear in mind the impact the objection may have on your witness and whether a heated debate as to the efficacy of the objection or the quality of the question will put the witness off his or her stride. Whilst it may be satisfying to you to defend your question or to point out your opponent is wrong or has misunderstood the position, it may be better from the point of view of the witness and the overall presentation of your case, to simply rephrase the question. You may
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
71
do so with the observation that: “Whilst I do not accept the objection is valid I will put the matter in another way.” You will have made your point and unproductive debate will have been avoided. Where the objection by your opponent is to admissibility or relevance rather than simply the form of your question you will need to determine whether the objection is sound and, if it is not, whether it is a matter worth pursuing. You will do this by reference to your case strategy. There is little point engaging in lengthy debate regarding matters that are not necessary to the proper presentation of your case in accordance with your case strategy. To enter upon such a debate is to distract you from the presentation of your case and to emphasise issues that may distract the court from your true argument. An assessment needs to be made as to whether you move on or stand and fight.
1.
72
Glissan & Tilmouth: Advocacy In Practice, Butterworths 1998
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Exhibits “Exhibits have the aura of ‘real’ evidence. It is often said of them in court that they never lie or exaggerate.” J H Phillips CJ
As part of your pre-case preparation and the development of your case strategy you will have to consider what exhibits are to be introduced into evidence and the effective use of those exhibits. At that time you should also consider the related topic of the use of visual aids In relation to exhibits it will be necessary for you to identify those exhibits that you must introduce into evidence and those in relation to which you have a choice. In relation to some exhibits there will be no choice, they will be essential to the proper presentation of your case. In other instances the position will not be so clear. In those cases the degree of relevance and the likely nature of the impact of the exhibit will usually be the determining factors. Most relevant exhibits will have some impact upon the tribunal. They are items which can be expected to become a focus of attention. They will give meaning to the oral evidence and, generally speaking, will enliven that evidence. Some exhibits will have an enormous impact upon the tribunal because of what they are. It is not hard to appreciate that the production of a dangerous looking knife, a gun or some other weapon will have a significant impact in a criminal or civil assault trial. Such an exhibit can be used to great effect. On the other hand the introduction of exhibits that are of marginal relevance or of limited impact may be counterproductive because they unnecessarily increase the clutter of materials available to the tribunal. In some cases the introduction of unnecessary exhibits may serve to distract the tribunal from focusing upon the issues you have identified in your preparation as essential to your case. Such exhibits may provide your opponent with an opportunity that would not otherwise be available. Having identified an exhibit you propose to introduce into evidence, you should next consider through whom the exhibit is to be introduced and at what point in the case that is to occur. In determining through whom the exhibit is to be introduced, you will need to consider the nature of the exhibit and the characteristics of your witnesses. In many instances the exhibit will only be able to be introduced through one witness. However, an exhibit that speaks for itself often may be introduced through any witness and therefore at any time in the course of the proceedings.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
73
An exhibit that requires explanation may have to be introduced through the witness who is best able to carry out that task and the time at which you introduce the exhibit will therefore be governed by the time at which that witness is to be called. The desirable timing for the introduction of an important exhibit may impact upon the order in which you decide to present your case. The desire to introduce an exhibit at a certain point in the case may lead to you re-assessing and altering the order in which witnesses are to be called. As to the timing of the introduction of the exhibit to the tribunal, it should be remembered that you are not restricted to production during evidence in chief. You may wish to first produce the exhibit to the tribunal in the course of your opening on the basis that a subsequent witness will introduce it into evidence. As an alternative, you may wish to save the production of the exhibit for the cross-examination of a witness who you know must be called. Heightened interest in the exhibit may be achieved by allowing it to be referred to on a number of occasions before it is finally produced. You may wish to leave it casually lying on the Bar table. You may wish to inspect it whilst your opponent is addressing some other issue. You may wish to produce it from an opaque bag or from below the bar table for maximum effect. On the other hand you may wish to have the exhibit in evidence from an early time in the trial to enable the tribunal to fully appreciate the evidence to which it is relevant. Your approach will vary depending upon the nature of the exhibit and the manner in which you wish to introduce the exhibit into evidence. Once the exhibit has been admitted into evidence you will need to consider whether it should then be shown to the jury. If it is a high impact exhibit you may wish to ask the trial Judge to have it shown to, or circulated amongst, the members of the jury immediately. Proceedings will stop whilst that occurs, serving the purpose of focusing attention on the exhibit and adding to the importance of the moment.
74
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
If the exhibit is a document, you may wish to emphasise the importance of the relevant passages by having the witness read them to the tribunal. You will only do this if the passage to be read is short. The reading of a lengthy passage is likely to mean you lose the interest of the tribunal. If it is absolutely necessary for a lengthy passage to be read you should provide copies to members of the jury or to the tribunal so that others may follow the text for themselves. Special care needs to be taken in tendering a bundle of documents or a file of documents to ensure the information contained in any peripheral document is not adverse to your client. You should carefully read the whole of the information contained in all of the documents to be included in the tender before completing the tender. An example of a situation where special care needs to be taken is in the tendering of a hospital file, which is likely to include a substantial amount of information regarding your client and much of that information is likely to be in handwriting that is only decipherable with assistance. The introduction of an exhibit need not be a simple mechanical process devoid of impact. Whilst there will be some exhibits that must be introduced in that way, it is necessary to consider each exhibit to ascertain the potential it may have to further enhance your case by the manner and timing of it being introduced into evidence.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
75
Visual Aids “Reason is founded on the evidence of our senses.” Percy Bysshe Shelley
The extent to which visual aids can be used in a case will depend upon the nature of the case. In complex or factually convoluted matters or where the testimony of witnesses involves concepts not part of the common experience of the tribunal (especially if the tribunal is a jury), visual aids can become a vital part of your presentation. The range of visual aids available is limited only by the imaginations of counsel and the witness. There are many forms of such aids used regularly in the courts, including charts, flow charts, diagrammatic representations, photographs, enlargements of extracts from written materials such as legislation or contracts, models (e.g. of buildings, sites, machines and other items or structures), plans or maps and computer generated graphics. Those aids can be directed towards a variety of purposes. They may be designed to: assist the tribunal to understand the order of events; appreciate the physical location in which events occurred; assist in explaining the relationship between one fact or set of facts and another; trace the path of some evidence (e.g. a chain of custody situation); or enable an expert to better explain some complicated concept. Care should be taken in choosing the visual aid employed to assist you or your witness in the presentation of the case. As technology develops more and more options will become available. You should be careful to ensure you are not unduly influenced by the wizardry of the available techniques. It will be counterproductive to have the court or the members of the jury marvelling at the techniques employed and yet totally missing the message that is sought to be conveyed. Further, it is necessary to remember that some forms of electronic presentation may not leave any hard copy for the jury or the tribunal to consider quietly at a later time. Some presentations by PowerPoint and some forms of computer generated reconstruction may be better left alone if their product is not readily accessible to the tribunal when it retires to consider the outcome of the proceedings. One of the most useful aids in a civil proceeding involving convoluted factual circumstances is the simple chronology. In most instances the development of a chronology is important for the proper preparation for the presentation of your case and it is easily converted to provide a reliable aid to the tribunal. It can also be updated as the trial proceeds by the inclusion of transcript references and references to exhibits for use in your final address. In my experience, chronologies are extremely useful and yet are surprisingly underutilised.
76
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Whatever visual aid is adopted, it is essential it fairly represent the evidence that is or will be before the tribunal. If it does not it is likely to be met by an objection and, in any event, will not help the tribunal. If an evidentiary matter necessary to support the visual aid has not been established or has been misunderstood by the advocate the aid will be of limited assistance to the case and may serve to highlight a flaw in the case. In those circumstances it will be counter-productive. Having determined you will use a visual aid and having identified that aid, it will be necessary for you to consider some tactical matters. Is the aid to be introduced at the time of your opening, in the course of evidence or is it to be first used in final address? If it is to be used in the opening or in the course of evidence you will have to consider whether there can be any objection to it and to devise a response to any anticipated objection. If it is to be used for the first time in your final address you should ensure the visual aid is entirely consistent with the evidence that has in fact been given and that you can point to the source of the information which the visual aid seeks to portray or reflect. It is important to remember the purpose of such an aid is to complement and supplement the oral testimony. It is to, simplify, clarify and enliven information that may otherwise be difficult to explain or convey. It is certainly not to detract from that testimony or to complicate or confuse what the witness has said. You must be careful not to overdo the use of visual aids. This will lead to confusion. Careful consideration needs to be given to the nature of visual aids used in a case and the methods by which, and the times at which, they are to be introduced to the tribunal. It is necessary to keep firmly in mind that visual aids, and the technology that may constitute the visual aid, are simply tools available to you to better present the case of your client.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
77
The Conduct of Counsel “To get the sympathy of the Tribunal for himself ought always to be one of the first objects of the advocate.” Richard Burdon Haldane
The courts in the Northern Territory are fortunate in that examples of misconduct by counsel are rare. Other jurisdictions have not been so fortunate. Examples of offensive and incompetent conduct by counsel are to be found in the law reports and are the subject of robing room discussion throughout the nation. There are some people who are simply not suited to the role of an advocate before any tribunal. By their conduct, their discourtesy and their inappropriate professional standards they do harm to the system and, more often than not, to their clients. An unfortunate example of inappropriate behaviour by counsel is to be found in the law reports of recent times. In the case of McIntyre [2000] 111 A Crim R 211, an appeal was allowed because of the conduct of defence counsel. The report of the case makes for interesting if disturbing reading. A feeling for the attitude of counsel is to be found in the following passages from the report. Counsel:
I am instructed by my client that he feels in no way could he receive a fair trial from you, because he feels strongly that you are totally prejudiced and biased against him, and all of your attitude to everything that took place yesterday. I must say in honesty and fairness, I suppose under the credo of veritas vos liberut (?) that I agree with my client. My friend here thinks this is a big bloody joke, I know, everybody here thinks it’s a joke, and I appreciate that both you and my friend are anxious for a conviction—
His Honour:
Well I don’t think it’s a—
Counsel:
—at any cost—let me finish. I am sick of this farce of a trial. I’ve had nothing but opposition from you and Mr Crown, and it seems to me, I’ve mentioned it before, you are incompetent to have heard this trial because of your open obvious prejudice and bias against my client, and now me personally, and in favour of the Crown...
There were many more examples of the misconduct of counsel to be found in the report. At one point in the course of the hearing counsel sought an adjournment for medical reasons. The trial judge required “a comprehensive
78
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
letter from your doctor saying that you are not available on Tuesday and why.” No doubt this requirement followed logically upon the conduct of counsel at an earlier time in the hearing. On the Tuesday counsel attended and said to the court: I was not sure how I would feel today, but you ordered me in, in lieu of a medical certificate which I wouldn’t give you for all the tea in China. Most of my colleagues in Chambers when I told them about your request for a medical certificate couldn’t stop from laughing and thought it was absolutely astounding and obnoxious, as I do and did at the time. The rudeness of counsel was not limited to the judge alone. His remarks were also directed to the crown prosecutor and to various witnesses who appeared to give evidence. In allowing the appeal Hulme J (with whom Sully and Hidden JJ agreed) observed that the conduct of counsel could be described as “gratuitous rudeness to witnesses, to counsel appearing for the Crown and to the judge, and the expression of personal views.” His Honour went on to say: In many of its aspects the conduct was repeated numerous times throughout the trial. It is by a factor of very many, worse than anything I have experienced or heard about in my career. Had I not read a transcript of it, I would not have believed it possible that it would have occurred. In a word, it was appalling. In allowing the appeal based upon the impropriety of the conduct of counsel the court noted there was nothing in the case that suggested the appellant himself was a participant in the activities of his counsel. Although a party is generally bound by the way in which counsel conducts the case, the circumstances in that case were such as to give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed because of the conduct of counsel.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
79
This was an extreme case. Had the conduct been less extreme the appeal may not have been successful even though the manner in which counsel conducted himself clearly had an adverse effect upon the interests of his client. The effective advocate will at all times maintain a high standard of conduct including unfailing courtesy to both the court and his or her opponent. That standard will be maintained notwithstanding the conduct of others in the court. You should not allow the discourtesy of others to influence you to lower your standards. When you respond to discourtesy by like conduct then you have allowed yourself to be influenced by others, you will no longer be presenting your own case on your own terms but rather on terms and in a manner dictated by others. Your case will suffer. Your client will suffer. The moment the misconduct of others causes you to depart from your own standards you allow your ego to interfere with the proper presentation of your client’s case. You will then be acting in the shallow defence of your own ego rather than pursuing the interests of your client.
80
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Jury Selection “The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anyone who has experienced the process of jury selection will have been reminded of a down market TattsLotto draw. The barrel spins, the number is drawn, and 50 or more people sweat upon whether their number will come up this time. A juror is selected and the process is repeated. Once the name of a potential juror has been identified comes the decision to be made on behalf of both the Crown and defence whether to challenge that particular potential juror. A decision has to be made then and there. The time available is limited to the time it takes for the selected person to move from his or her position in the court room to the front of the jury box where he or she will be sworn or affirmed. It is a very small period of time indeed. In some trials it is an intriguing exercise for those not directly involved to try to determine whether the challenges made follow some pre-determined plan or are simply made because counsel wishes to be seen to be doing something. An investigation conducted on behalf of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) in 1994 found the use of the peremptory challenge was “often arbitrary, used in a partisan manner to manufacture a jury favourable to the interests of the challenging party, based upon crude stereotyping, and did not afford the accused much input into the selection process.” 1 Elsewhere it has been suggested that the whole process is of dubious utility.2 If the right to challenge is to be exercised the task that confronts the advocate is a difficult one. Generally all that is known of the potential juror is the name and a general description of his or her employment. The description of the employment can be as broad as “public servant”, “manager”, “home duties” and “unemployed”. In many cases the description is quite unhelpful. However, something can be learned of the potential juror by a quick physical assessment. The sex, approximate age and the style of dress may be matters that will assist in determining whether or not to challenge a juror. Other signs may be more compelling. The wearing of a T-shirt emblazoned “Legalise Marijuana” or “Bring Back the Death Penalty” may give some guide to whether or not you would want that person on your jury. Of course the exercise remains one of “crude stereotyping”.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
81
In determining whether to challenge, and if so on what basis, much will depend upon the nature of the case you are to present. Before you enter upon the jury selection process you will have considered the question of the desirable composition of the jury, the type of person you would like on the panel and, more importantly, the nature of those whom you would wish to challenge. The nature of the case to be presented and the nature of your client will inform your decision. The decision will always be a difficult one. The impact upon the outcome of the trial of your decision to challenge or not challenge a particular person is unlikely to ever be known. You are to a large extent required to work in the dark. In the Northern Territory the selection of the jury is governed by the Juries Act. The jury will normally consist of 12 jurors with up to three reserve jurors. The Crown and the person arraigned (or “his counsel”), may each challenge peremptorily six jurors in a normal case and 12 jurors in the case of a capital offence. Further challenges are allowed but they must be for cause shown. A challenge for cause may be made at any time. In addition the court may, at the request of the Crown, order a juror to stand aside but the number of jurors so ordered shall not exceed six. In relation to a challenge for cause the following is said in Bishop: Criminal Procedure (second edition): There is no limit to the number of potential jurors who may be challenged for cause. A challenge for cause is generally made orally. Where a potential juror is challenged the person issuing the challenge must lay a foundation of fact to support the challenge before any right to cross-examine the juror arises. A trial judge is under no duty to allow potential jurors to be “paraded for crossexamination” in the hope that grounds for challenge might emerge. If a prima facie case can be established then the issue is tried on the voir dire. In addition to a challenge to individual jurors there is a right contained in the Juries Act to challenge the array. A challenge to the array may occur where the Sheriff has proceeded in disregard of the provisions of a statute or of the law to summon the panel which, because of that failure, is not made up in the manner required by the law. There are other bases upon which a challenge can be made. An example of a successful challenge to the array in the Northern Territory is found in R v Diack (1983) 19 NTR 13. In that case counsel for the applicant was surprised to find a disproportionate number of females on the jury panel and he therefore challenged the array. Evidence was called and it appeared a system had been developed by the Sheriff that involved identifying many more potential jurors than the Chief Justice’s precept required.
82
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Sheriff’s officers then went out and served summonses until the number necessary to fulfil the precept had been served. The officers did not bother to serve the rest. It was thought that this led to the imbalance in the number of females because, at the time of service, there were more females at home and available for service than males. Nader J allowed the challenge noting that “there is to be no loose practice in the summoning of persons whose names are drawn in the ballot.” He held that there need be substantial, if not strict, compliance with the provisions of the Juries Act for the selection of a jury. It will be the members of the jury who make the final decision in the case. The composition of the jury is a matter largely beyond the control of counsel. With care and acute observation you may be able to have some small influence upon that matter.
1.
Challenging a Potential Juror for Cause. McCrimmon 23 UNSW Law Journal 127.
2.
NSWLRC Report 48.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
83
Relating to the Jury “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” Robert Frost
The approach adopted by an advocate in presenting a case to a jury will differ from that which would be employed if the tribunal were a judge sitting alone. Generally speaking members of the jury will be embarking upon a new experience. It is likely many will find the newness of the experience distracting, especially in the initial stages of the proceeding. Until the roles of the participants have been spelled out there will be a tendency to look upon the process as an interested spectator rather than a participant. Jurors are likely to find the conduct of legal proceedings quite different from anything they have experienced before. They will not be familiar with the layout of the court, the “interesting” dress of the participants, the roles of the principal players or with the unusual use of language that makes up the jargon of the courts. They may have difficulty grasping legal concepts and approaches to proof that lawyers, who appear in the courts regularly and have specialised training, take for granted. It follows that you should not assume the jury has greater knowledge and comprehension of what is going on than in fact may be the case. Do not make the mistake of assuming that members of the general public and, in particular, members of your jury, think in the same way as do lawyers. Be aware that different members of the jury will have different cognitive skills. They will inevitably have different levels of intelligence and they will gather and process information in different ways. You should also bear in mind that the members of the jury will be hearing the facts of the matter for the first time. They will be doing so in circumstances where the whole process is distracting for them. They will not have a ready familiarity with the history of the matter and therefore will not have an immediate appreciation of the importance of facts that may be obvious to others with a longer involvement in the action. You should present your case in a way that is both clear to persons who are not familiar with the courts or the particular matter and in a way which ensures the interest and attention of the jury is maintained. To this end there are some strategies you may wish to adopt. In cases that are factually or legally complex you should endeavour to identify and employ simplification strategies. 84
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
This will include avoiding complex language and, so far as it be possible, complex concepts. Information provided to the jury should be reduced to its simplest and most direct form. You should avoid jargon. You should avoid acronyms. You should employ plain English and simple terms. In order to address and simplify complex issues you may wish to use chronologies, charts and other visual aids. As with most people in the community, jurors have a limited attention span. It is essential you employ strategies to endeavour to maintain their interest and attention. You should add variety to your presentation. You should avoid the monotone. You should intersperse your presentation with a reference to visual aids or to exhibits. You may wish to introduce the occasional rhetorical question to maintain interest and to have the members of the panel formulating answers consistent with the case you are endeavouring to present. If you fail to maintain the interest of the jurors then, no matter how compelling your argument may be, it may not be given a fair chance of proper consideration because the capacity for attention has been exceeded. Although I suspect most juries are sufficiently sophisticated as to avoid identifying the client with the advocate, it will be helpful to your client’s cause if the jury is able to warm to you. It would be unfortunate if the members of the jury felt antagonistic or distrusting towards you for whatever reason as that may reflect upon the view they form of your client. Displays of arrogance, insensitivity, bullying, unfairness and other displeasing characteristics by the advocate are unlikely to help the cause of the client. Of course if the members of the jury have a feeling of trust in the advocate that may be beneficial for the client. In my experience, most juries are collectively intelligent and perceptive.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
85
They are less likely to be swayed by a dramatic presentation than they are to be swayed by pure, direct and simple logic. They will be put off by sharp practice on the part of the advocate. There should be no attempt to con them. You will be assisted in gaining the trust of the jury if you are seen to be candid. You should avoid any suggestion or possible perception that you are trying to deceive them. It is better to confront bad facts and endeavour to explain these rather than be thought to be avoiding them. The members of the jury are told to bring their common sense and experience of the real world to bear in making decisions. They are unlikely to be impressed by nice distinctions or subtle arguments that do not confront the important issues of the case. Obviously, when appearing in the presence of a jury you should demonstrate confidence in your own skills and confidence in your client’s case. That confidence should not transgress into arrogance or be marred by flippancy about the case or sarcasm regarding the case for the other side. You must to the best of your ability make your presentation simple, interesting and to the point. You should keep the special needs of the jury in the forefront of your mind at all times including when you are engaged in preparation for trial.
86
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Experts and the Jury “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.” L Long
In any trial before a jury the calling of evidence from an expert witness requires special care in both preparation and presentation. The fact that expert testimony is necessary means the subject matter to be addressed is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment on it without the assistance of a witness possessing special knowledge or experience in the area.1 Expert evidence is likely to involve matters that members of the jury will find are beyond their everyday experience and involve concepts and thought processes they have not in the past had to address. In such cases it is your task as counsel to ensure the evidence called from the expert is presented in such a way that the jury can understand it and fully appreciate the impact it has upon the case. If those goals are not achieved then the responsibility for the failure does not rest with the expert witness but rather with counsel. Prior to calling an expert witness to testify you should, wherever possible, spend time with that person preparing for the giving of evidence. If the expert is a person who is not frequently before the courts then he or she is likely to need assistance in understanding their role and the nature of the evidence they are to address. They will need to be reminded that they are not necessarily addressing people who have any understanding of even the basic concepts of the matters which are to be discussed. On the other hand, they also need to appreciate that it is necessary to treat the jury with respect. Whilst they should not talk down to the jury they do need to explain matters in simple terms and, in particular, using plain language and avoiding the use of acronyms and jargon. The witness should be encouraged to adopt simplification techniques and to avoid raising unnecessary complicating factors. The expert should be encouraged to use visual aids and other techniques that may assist the jury to understand what is being said. The explanations should, so far as possible, be confined to what is necessary for the jury to be told in order to achieve an understanding and appreciation of the evidence. Even where the expert witness to be called is a person who has vast experience before the courts and familiarity with the diverse possibilities for the composition of the jury and the variables in the capacity of the individual jurors to understand, it will still be necessary to spend time devising methods of presenting the information to the jury to achieve the ends of understanding and appreciation of the impact of the evidence.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
87
It will be necessary for you to make an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of your expert in the context of a jury trial. Some experts are natural communicators and will need very little assistance. Their evidence and approach will only need to be fine-tuned. Others are likely to be in need of a total overhaul of their methods of communicating with people outside of their field of expertise. It is also necessary to assess the nature of the material to be presented to the jury. That material will range from the extraordinarily complex to the logical and simple. Some expert evidence is likely to be enthralling and little difficulty will be experienced in maintaining the interest of the jury. Other expert evidence may be interesting but complex and it will be necessary to present it in a way that maintains the interest of the jury. Yet other expert evidence is likely to be both boring and complex (e.g. an accountant explaining the detailed financial transactions in a complicated fraud case) and it will be necessary to employ all of the skills and strategies available to you and your witness to ensure the interest and understanding of the jury is maintained. Where the matter is complex or boring (or both) you will need to keep in the forefront of your mind that once the interest of the jury has been lost it will be almost impossible to regain. It is very easy for individual jurors to be overwhelmed and simply give up. It is desirable for your expert to keep an eye on the jury whilst presenting his or her evidence to determine whether the explanation is being received and understood. Whilst it is desirable for your expert to adopt that approach it is vital that you do so. Where you see the interest of a member of the jury waning then it is time for you to take control and to restructure the evidence in order to maintain or regain the interest. The approach you adopt will vary depending upon the character and skills
88
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
of your expert and upon the nature of the evidence to be led. In some cases a step by step approach may be appropriate. In others it may be advisable to start with the conclusion and then go back to square one to explain to the jury how it is the conclusion could be reached. In preparing for and in presenting the evidence of an expert, it is prudent to bear in mind both the expert and yourself have a familiarity with the subject matter being discussed that is not available to the members of the jury. Further, it is likely your expert will be highly educated and, of course, you have also had the benefit of years of education. Members of your jury may not have been so fortunate. The expert has spent years dealing with the subject matter and you have spent a considerable part of your preparation becoming familiar with it. Your preparation and presentation should reflect an ever present awareness of the difference between the advantages enjoyed by your witness and yourself and the situation of the members of the jury.
1.
R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45; Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
89
Addressing the Jury – Part 1 “One has to strike the jugular and let the rest go.” Oliver Wendell Holmes
The final address to the jury is the point in the trial where the benefits of your labours in preparation should be realised. It is at this time the persuasive force of your case strategy is fully exposed. It is the culmination of the trial and it is your last opportunity to present your client’s case to the jury: it is obviously a crucial moment in the trial process. What you say to the jury will be designed to have the greatest possible impact. You will wish to leave the jury members with their minds filled with the force of your arguments as they enter the jury room to consider their verdict. Your address will therefore need to be logical and forceful, yet concise and to the point. In presenting your final address you should bear in mind the jury is likely to be a different audience from that which filed into the jury box on day one of the trial. At that time the individual jurors were embarking upon something which was to them likely to be a novel experience involving all sorts of distractions and concerning a case about which they knew nothing. By the time of the final addresses all that will have changed. The members of the jury will have become familiar with the trappings of the court. They will have heard all the evidence and will have formed opinions about the witnesses and their stories. They will have developed their own views as to the honesty and reliability of the witnesses called and whether they accept all or part of the evidence of each witness. They are likely to have formed at least tentative views as to the outcome of the proceedings. At the time of your final address the members of the jury will have before them all of the information they are to receive and they will be looking to counsel for assistance and guidance in the deliberations they are about to undertake. They will be keenly interested in what you have to say. They will have questions in their minds they will want you to answer. They will be less interested in oratorical flourish than in hearing logical and persuasive argument directed to the crucial issues in the case. Your challenge will be to present such an argument. The address will need to be such that it will shore up the views of jurors who are favourably inclined to the case you present, will sway the undecided juror and will cause any unfavourable juror to rethink the position they have adopted. The content of your address will have been determined in broad outline prior to the commencement of the trial. What you say at the end of the case will be
90
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
informed by the case strategy developed in your early preparation. Changes will be made to accommodate matters that developed in the course of the hearing and which had not been anticipated. In addition you will be able to refer to the specific evidence of individual witnesses in order to bolster the points you make. You will need to consider addressing points made by your opponent during the course of the case where that is necessary. However you should not regard it as necessary to address every issue raised in the case or every issue raised by your opponent. You should concentrate on the core issues and not get bogged down in unnecessary arguments on peripheral matters. It will be necessary for you to confront the perceived weaknesses in your case as well as emphasising the strengths. You should not avoid issues that are matters for concern in the hope the members of the jury will not notice. If there is a problem in your argument you can be confident that, insofar as the jury may not already be aware of it, either your opponent or the judge in the course of summing up will draw the problem to their attention. You must confront those issues and provide the jury with an acceptable approach to them consistent with your case strategy. If it is obvious you have a problem then it may be desirable to frankly concede that to the jury. Having done so you can then proceed to inform them why it is that the problem is not of importance in the case or is not fatal to your arguments and why it is that a verdict in favour of your client is still available. If you fail to address such an issue it is likely to assume an even greater significance in the minds of the jury. It will be an important and negative point unanswered. Of course you will draw the weaknesses of your opponent’s argument to the attention of the jury thereby requiring your opponent to either address those issues or leave the matter unexplained before the jury.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
91
Addressing the Jury – Part 2 “To be brief is almost a condition of being inspired.” George Santayana
As with the rest of the community the attention span of members of jury panels is of short duration. You should commence your address by grabbing the attention of the jurors then proceed to present your argument in a way that maintains their interest. You should “strip away the peripheral information, and repeat key ideas, since repetition is important for retention” 1. An example of an effective commencement to a closing address was that presented by David Ross QC prosecuting in a trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 2000. The trial involved an allegation of rape where consent was the issue. Without further introduction he read a paragraph from the evidence of the alleged victim. His first words to the jury were: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you remember what (Ms X) told you she did when at last she got home. Let me remind you of what she said: “I went upstairs, I was inside the house.” Question: “How were you feeling at that time?” Answer: “I couldn’t stop crying. I felt hollow. Felt tainted, I guess. It was just unbelievable empty feeling, so I had a shower—I couldn’t—I couldn’t get the smell off me— this vile stench. I scrubbed myself. I couldn’t get rid of it”. That opening had immediate impact regarding the vital issue in the case. There is no point in commencing your address by reminding the jury of pedestrian things of which they are already aware, or providing them with information that must be obvious to them, or anticipating information with which they will be provided in the summing up of the trial Judge. Informing the jury they have reached the end of the trial, or advising them as to the functions of the various people in the Court, or addressing any of those matters which Judges are required to address, is not only a waste of time but also a waste of your opportunity to deal effectively with the important issues. In addition it is tedious. It is better to avoid those matters and go directly to the heart of the case. You can be sure the Judge will address the issues of law in accordance with the aide memoire provided to the jury. You can be confident those matters regularly addressed by Judges at this stage in the trial will be dealt with and, if they are not, you will be able to remind the Judge this is necessary before the jury commences deliberating. Judges will almost always address such matters as the burden of proof, the elements of the offence, definitions or explanations of relevant legal terms, how the evidence of witnesses is to be approached and the many, many
92
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
warnings required to be provided by a trial Judge in various instances. You detract from the effectiveness of your time before the jury if you spend that valuable time going over matters to be addressed in any event by the Judge. Of course you may wish to address such an issue if it is important to the effective presentation of your argument. Otherwise you should anticipate what is to be said and avoid repetition. If you are in doubt as to the matters the Judge will address then you can raise those in the absence of the jury at a convenient time. In the course of the trial, issues may arise that are of peripheral interest only and do not impact negatively upon your case strategy. In order to keep your address as succinct as possible you should avoid addressing other matters not essential to your presentation. Such issues should only be addressed if there is a good reason to do so. Do not be distracted by non-essential issues. By addressing such issues in detail you give them an importance they do not deserve. You give the jury another issue to consider. You may need to mention some such matters in order to inform the jury you are not going to pursue them because they lack relevance to the issues in the case. Alternatively you may simply ignore those matters because the argument you do present will necessarily lead to a conclusion the issues not addressed are irrelevant. Careful assessment is required. Do not overload the jury. Deal only with those issues that are important. If your address must go on for a lengthy period of time then you should develop and employ strategies to ensure the material you present and the manner in which you present it represents the best opportunity for maintaining the attention of the individual members of the jury. Obviously you will not provide a detailed review of the evidence of each of the witnesses except insofar as that evidence is necessary for the proper presentation of your argument. Reading slabs of transcript is to be avoided. Make use of the exhibits or any visual aids available to you in order to keep the presentation alive and interesting. Do not hesitate to ask rhetorical questions. At this point of the trial the members of the jury will have the benefit of having received all of the evidence and will be generally aware of the issues. One approach to persuading them to your point of view and at the same time maintaining their interest is to pose questions regarding the evidence and the issues that lead to answers and, therefore, conclusions consistent with your argument. It is well understood that people are more likely to become wedded to an approach or conclusion if they arrive at that approach or conclusion through their own logical thought processes. With skill you can stimulate and direct those thought processes. The posing of appropriate rhetorical questions can facilitate that process.
1.
Mauet & McCrimmon: Fundamentals of Trial Techniques, 2nd Aust. ed. 2001.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
93
Organise the Address “Don’t agonise. Organise” Florynce Kennedy
I have previously discussed the need for brevity in your final address to the jury. Brevity may be achieved by focusing on the core issues in the case and avoiding peripheral issues. I suggest you construct your address so it presents an argument that is to the point, easy to follow and intellectually satisfying, thereby making it easy for your audience to understand and accept your conclusions. A well-ordered address adds force to the argument you present. Careful consideration needs to be given to how an effective order of presentation may be achieved. You will need to pose a number of questions to guide your preparation. Your first task will be to settle upon the content of the address. You will ask yourself: “What issues do I need to address? What issues can I safely ignore?” Once you have identified the matters to be addressed you will consider how best to present the argument relating to those issues. In what order should the identified issues be addressed? How will I start? How will I conclude? How will I approach the strengths of the case for the opposition and the strengths in my own case? In dealing with counsel who was presenting a confused address Mr Justice Maule is reputed to have said: I know my brain is getting a little dilapidated; but I should like to stipulate for some sort of order. There are plenty of them. There is the chronological, the botanical, the metaphysical, the geographical, why even the alphabetical order would be better than no order at all. A logical process ought to be adopted. Issues should be raised and addressed in a logical order so your audience can see how one thought process flows into the next. Any confusion in your mind and any confusion in the approach you adopt is likely to lead to confusion in the minds of the members of the jury. If you jump from thought to thought and topic to topic it will be difficult for others to follow what you are saying and the impact of your argument may be lost as the jury struggles to keep up. It is preferable to proceed through the material you wish to present in a deliberate and predetermined order endeavouring to ensure the arguments that seem appealing to you are developed in a way that makes them also appealing to your audience. Of course in some cases confusion may be the only hope for success that remains for you. However in most cases a clear, concise and logical presentation is called for.
94
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
At the conclusion of a case it is likely you will have a range of arguments to present. Some of those arguments will be strong, others not so strong. It is not necessary to present every argument and, indeed, it can be counterproductive to do so. Be selective. If you have a strong argument and you present it in company with a weak argument, you may find the overall impact of your strong argument is reduced because of the scepticism the jury feels for the weaker argument. You need to determine your best arguments and present those clearly and forcefully. You should avoid the desire to address all arguments just because they are there. Do not get stuck on peripheral issues. Do not unnecessarily overload the jury. Of course in the case of a prosecutor it may be necessary to address a wider range of arguments than is the case for defence counsel because the prosecutor must establish the Crown case beyond reasonable doubt. It may be necessary for the prosecution to draw all the threads together to assist the jury. What is required will vary from case to case. One aspect of your preparation for your final address to a jury should relate to matters of an organisational nature. It is desirable that your presentation be smooth and free-flowing. The jury should not be distracted whilst you pause to order your thoughts or while you find an exhibit or endeavour to locate a passage in the transcript. At the time you commence your address your thoughts should be in order. You should know what you intend to say and in what order you intend to say it. The papers and exhibits to which you may need to refer in the course of your address should be to hand and arranged in such a way that permits you to have ready access to them at any time. There should be no need for you to seek forgiveness from the jury whilst you locate a particular item. Whilst you are fumbling amongst your papers or searching for an exhibit the minds of the jury will be focused upon matters other than the argument you present. When you have located the missing item you will have to regain the thread of your argument and ensure that the jury has done likewise. If you are properly prepared such an interruption to your presentation will not occur. The presentation of your final address is a crucial event in the trial process. An ordered and logical approach is called for. Careful preparation will avoid that event being marked by unnecessary and distracting interruptions.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
95
Follow the Path of Least Resistance “The cautious seldom err.” Confucius
In addressing a jury you should not place unnecessary obstacles in the path of your case. If it is unnecessary to establish a particular matter for the purposes of your argument then do not seek to do so. By doing so you divert attention from the directly relevant issues and you undertake an obligation that does not rest upon you. An illustration of this proposition is that in the usual case defence counsel should not assume the burden of seeking to establish the innocence of his or her client, the accused person. As is well known the onus of proof in criminal cases rests upon the Crown. All that defence counsel need do is identify the basis for a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the client. Whilst counsel may wish to suggest to the jury that the innocence of the client is clearly established, he or she should do so in a way that makes it clear that this is not a hurdle to be overcome. The issue for the jury is whether or not the Crown has proved the case against the client beyond reasonable doubt. To move the focus away from that question by assuming an additional burden will often be a dangerous way to proceed. When making points to the jury it is desirable you do so in a way that is easy for them to accept. Unless it cannot be avoided you should not require the jury to reach a conclusion that is likely to be an unpalatable conclusion for them. You should adopt, and permit the jury to travel along, the path of least resistance. For example, there is a natural reluctance on the part of people to conclude that another is lying or being deliberately deceitful. Human nature is such that, generally speaking, people prefer to accept the honesty of others until the contrary is demonstrated. Unless there is some identified advantage to be obtained from so doing, you should not call upon a jury to find that a particular witness has lied. If your goal is to have the evidence of a witness rejected or, at least doubted, you will bear in mind it is easier for a jury to reject evidence on the basis the witness has been confused or mistaken or under some form of misapprehension rather than that he or she has lied under oath. It may be clear to you that the witness has lied but that is unlikely to be the only conclusion open.
96
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The members of the jury may not share your view of the witness. They may feel sympathy for the witness. If they are left with a blunt proposition from you that the witness lied, you may find some members of the jury will not adopt that view. Leaving alternatives to the jury enables them to agree with your submission that the evidence ought not be accepted or relied upon without the necessity to reach the unpalatable conclusion that the witness has been deliberately untruthful. You may wish to suggest to the jury, possibly in very strong terms, that the likelihood is the witness lied and to point to the evidence that logically leads to or supports that conclusion. This may involve comparisons with the evidence of others, a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, an evaluation of the internal inconsistencies within the evidence or an analysis of the motives, prejudices or lack of objectivity displayed by the witness. However, depending upon the circumstances, the jury may be more inclined to accept the evidence is unreliable for reasons that do not reflect upon the honesty of the witness. It is preferable to allow for that prospect by leaving to them the alternative propositions that the evidence of the witness was unreliable as the result of mistake, confusion, faulty recollection due to the passage of time or whatever other cause presents itself. In the absence of some compelling reason for so doing do not saddle your client’s case with the burden of showing the witness to be a liar. In most cases to do so is to assume an unnecessary responsibility. In preparing your address you will be aware that the version of events that appeals to you might not be the only version that is reasonably open. Of course there will be the competing version presented by your opponent, but there may be others. You should not assume the jury has limited itself to one of the two options presented by counsel. If there are alternatives available and they are not inconsistent with your case theory then you will tell the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
97
jury why that is the case. If an alternative is inconsistent with your client’s case then you will wish to explain to the jury why it is that it should not be accepted. It is important that none of the available alternatives is allowed to accompany the jury into their deliberations unaddressed. In presenting your address it is vital you do so with apparent confidence in the force of your argument. If you are hesitant because you have not yet thought through what you are about to say, or because your preparation has otherwise been poor or because you don’t find the propositions you make convincing, then it is likely the jury will not warm to the argument. Your confidence in the argument you present should be reflected in the language you adopt. The language chosen should convey a sense of certainty. Propositions you invite the jury to accept as fact should be expressed in a positive way. Generally speaking the use of expressions such as “it is submitted” or “it may be” or “I ask you to accept” and the like suggest hesitancy and are to be avoided. No matter what your innermost thoughts may be a positive and confident presentation is called for.
98
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Presenting the Address “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.” Yogi Berra
The closing address is your final opportunity to present your case directly to the jury. At this time it is essential you exercise all your skills in an endeavour to engage the jury. There are numerous techniques you may wish to employ to achieve this end. Many of these have been discussed earlier. One matter of importance is the approach you adopt to the jury. Care must be taken to ensure you are, and are seen to be, talking to them rather than lecturing them or in any sense talking down to them. You will be assisting them in the task they are about to undertake and that will involve an element of explanation of your argument and discussion of the reasons for one approach being preferred over another. In such circumstances it is easy to create an impression that you are being patronising or for you to sound condescending. This is to be avoided. It is desirable you endeavour to maintain eye contact with as many members of the panel as possible. You are likely to lose the jury if you spend your time reading from notes. Similarly, if you are forever flicking through your notes, or searching for documents, or clicking your pen, or engaging in any other distracting conduct, you will be detracting from the effectiveness of your presentation. There is much debate about the use of notes in the presentation of an address. If you are one of those fortunate individuals who is able to clearly recall all of the matters to be addressed without the assistance of notes then of course you should address without reference to notes. However most people will need to at least have a series of points or headings to remind them of the order of the address they are about to present and as a check list to ensure every point that should be addressed is addressed. Others may need to have a more detailed outline of the address incorporating key phrases to be used at pre-determined points, passages in the transcript to be quoted and other matters of importance to the address. I do not accept the view that it is necessary to do away with notes altogether. For some people the presence of notes may act as a form of security blanket even though the notes are not referred to. Such advocates may wish to have notes to hand for the purposes of reminding them of matters to be addressed, ensuring all topics have been covered and for them to resort to if struck by a mental blank. In addition an advocate may wish to have parts of the address recorded in a form that is carefully constructed and which identifies pre-
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
99
determined persuasive expressions specially created for greater impact. In those limited circumstances the advocate may wish to place greater reliance on notes for a short time. Personal experience will determine the extent to which you use notes in your address. Whatever approach you adopt, you should avoid the monotonous reading of the final address. To simply read the address makes for dull listening and can mean what you have to say is less persuasive than would be the case with a natural conversational presentation of the argument. Reading from notes removes the spontaneity from your address and is likely to reduce the impact and appeal of what you have to say. Further, if you are reading you cannot engage the members of the jury. You will have little idea as to how they are reacting to what you say. You will not know whether a change of tack is desirable. In the course of the final address it is inadvisable to read at length from any source including the transcript and documents that are exhibits in the proceedings. If the jury does not have the document before them, and therefore the ability to follow it themselves, reading a lengthy passage is likely to lead to a loss of concentration and inattention. In most cases it will be better to paraphrase and summarise passages for the jury. If there are vital words that need to be directly quoted then direct quotation can be adopted of those particular words and the paraphrasing then resumed. In the event you have to read directly from a document you should have the precise material to be read identified in advance. You should not be determining what is to be read and what is not to be read whilst you are on your feet. It is useful to highlight the passage that is to be read clearly identifying the commencing point and the end point. Consistent with your conduct throughout the case you should avoid the temptation to use complex terms, technical phrases, acronyms or legal jargon in your address. In other words, you should avoid the use of language that might be misunderstood by your audience. As part of the process of seeking to simplify the issues and maintain the attention and understanding of the jury you will seek to adopt simple and direct language. If your address is to be interrupted by a necessary adjournment you will wish to take full advantage of that. Immediately before the adjournment you will focus full attention upon one of the stronger arguments in your armoury. The jury will then retire with that consideration in mind. They will have the whole of the break to ponder it. When the hearing resumes following the adjournment you can remind the jury you were discussing that powerful point immediately before the adjournment and by repetition reinforce it. You may then move on to your next point. In most cases when you reach the end of your address it is desirable to claim the verdict. Bring the matter to a conclusion by telling the jury exactly what it is you want. It may be imprudent to demand a particular result because
100
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
the jury may consider you to be intruding upon the function they have been told is for them alone. Rather you should confidently request the result. The conclusion of your address should be on a strong note. It should not peter out. The address should not simply fade to black. The members of the jury must be left with the full force of your argument uppermost in their minds as you resume your seat.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
101
The Judge’s Address to the Jury “Mistakes are the inevitable lot of mankind.” Sir George Jessel
When you have completed your address to the jury and have triumphantly resumed your seat you may feel a natural inclination to relax. Hopefully you will be quietly congratulating yourself on your compelling argument and your effective presentation. Alternatively you may be inclined to sit and stew over things you should have said or castigate yourself for the manner in which you presented the argument. A post mortem should not be held at this point. Once you have resumed your seat you should focus your attention upon what the judge has to say. You need to pay close attention to what the judge says in order to ensure that what falls from him or her does not, in the interests of your client, require further explanation, correction or modification in matters of fact or law. In their work Australian Criminal Trial Directions, Glissan and Tilmouth consider the proper bounds of the summing up by a judge to a jury and identify the following five elements as being essential for the summing up to comply with principle: •
it should be fair and balanced;
•
where the judge expresses views, the jury must be clearly directed that the ultimate decision on questions of fact is theirs;
•
it is dangerous and unwise for a judge to put forward a basis of liability or explanation of factual material not advanced by either party;
•
the judge must clearly and fairly put the defence case as a recognisable entity. This duty extends even to putting defences that have not been relied on by counsel for the defence (or even denied by the accused) if there is a factual basis for them in evidence;
•
the summing up should include: -- a succinct and accurate summary of the issues; -- a concise and correct summary of the arguments on both sides; -- an accurate statement of the inferences the jury are entitled to draw from the primary facts; -- reference to the respective role of judge and jury; and -- a concise and correct statement of the law to be applied.
102
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
In most cases, prior to the commencement of his or her address, the judge will have provided you with a draft aide memoire in which the applicable law is summarised for the benefit of the jury. You should pay careful attention to this document and ensure it fairly summarises the law and identifies the issues. This is a most important document and will travel with the jury into the jury room. It is likely to play an important part in the process of deliberation by focusing the attention of the jury upon the issues identified in it as being important. It will be too late for you to complain once the verdict is to hand. If an error has occurred it may only be corrected by an appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal may wonder why it was you failed to assist the court. You should also pay attention to the directions provided by the judge to the jury that are not contained in the aide memoire. You need to ensure the judge does not present a view to the jury that is unbalanced or otherwise deficient. This observation applies to issues of both fact and law. In addition you will wish to ensure the judge has identified and dealt with all of the matters discussed by Glissan and Tilmouth. Particular attention should be paid to the defences available to the accused whether those defences have been raised by the accused or not. If you are counsel for the defence you may have focused your attention upon the strongest defences available and deliberately refrained from developing argument in relation to others. Some defences may not have been addressed because they are inconsistent with your case strategy or with other available defences. This often applies where both self-defence and provocation are open to an accused. Whether you appear to prosecute or for the defence it is necessary you ensure the judge fairly puts all available defences to the jury.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
103
If you are concerned you failed to address a particular issue or to draw the attention of the jury to a particular matter in the course of your address, you may wish to raise that with the judge for correction in his or her address. Whether the matter can or should be attended to in that way will depend upon the circumstances of the case. It is essential that both counsel maintain concentration during the course of the summing up by the judge and take the opportunity to invite the judge to correct any errors or omissions that are identified during the course of that process. Self-congratulations or self-flagellation can occur when the jury has retired.
104
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Addressing the Judge “To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Much of what has been said in relation to the presentation of a closing address to a jury has equal application to such an address presented to a judge sitting alone. However it is obviously necessary to remember the two are quite different exercises involving quite different tribunals. Different approaches to the content of the address and the style of presentation will be called for. Some of the more obvious differences between a tribunal consisting of a judge and jury and that constituted by a judge alone point up the need for a different approach in some areas of your address. Whilst members of the jury panel are not legally trained and are doomed to sit and listen to both counsel in silence, a judge will be well trained and likely to be willing to enter into discussion or debate with you. The jury has the freedom to present a verdict unaccompanied by any identification of the reasoning process undertaken. It will not be called upon to justify the verdict it delivers. A judge must publish a reasoned basis for reaching his or her conclusion. The jury is likely to be less concerned with listening to debate on nice issues of law than it is with determining issues of fact. It will not be concerned with the value of its decision as a precedent for other matters. As with the address to the jury, counsel making an address to a judge should be selective in the material to be included. You should not present every argument just because it is available. You should not address every issue just because it is there. You should be selective in the issues you address and only direct your attention to those necessary for the proper presentation of your case. Sir Robert Menzies said in his book Afternoon Light: There can be nothing more irritating to a judge than to have before him an advocate who cannot distinguish good argument from bad, who argues everything, who recognises and concedes no weakness in his case, who goes on and on and finally leaves the court with a confused mess of ideas and arguments from which the judge must endeavour to extract some relevance and some help. There are some such advocates. Either they have not adequately mastered their case and isolated the points upon which judgment will turn; or they are afraid to exercise their own judgment by discarding bad arguments; or they weakly believe that the quantity of their words will, in the ears of their client, make up for the paucity of the quality.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
105
In debating an issue of law before a judge you should, insofar as you are able, confine yourself to the principal authorities. There is no need to cite a multitude of authorities all going to establish the same point. If the High Court has spoken on the issue then it is sufficient to refer to what the High Court has said. You will only need to go to other authorities if the point or points are not adequately covered by the authority to which you refer. Your argument is unlikely to be made stronger by reference to multiple authorities all to the same effect. It is undesirable to read lengthy slabs of judgments to the court. It is preferable to identify the principle and the location at which the principle can be found. If there is a concise enunciation of the principle then you may wish to read that. If there is not you may wish to summarise the effect of the authorities you have provided to the court and provide references within the reports to where relevant passages may be found. One approach to your final address is to place yourself in the position of the judge and provide the information you think would be useful if you were the one being called upon to deliver a reasoned judgment. The delivery of a wellreasoned decision can be an onerous task and the judge will appreciate any assistance provided in attending to that task. The provision of written submissions is, in most cases, beneficial. The beauty of written submissions is they require counsel to identify and focus on the issues that need to be addressed. They call for a concise and convincing presentation of the problem and of the solution. They focus the mind of counsel upon what is important. Properly prepared, the submissions will identify in a clear and concise form the issues to which the judge must turn his or her attention and provide an intellectually satisfying method of dealing with those issues in a manner that will lead to a favourable result for your client. You will have been successful in this regard when you recognise the thrust of your submissions reflected in the judgment. The effective use of written submissions is a useful tool in achieving a successful outcome. It is a part of the armoury of a good advocate.
106
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Questions from the Bench “Law: the only game where the best players get to sit on the bench.” Anonymous
Questions and observations from the Bench should not be regarded as an unwelcome distraction. As an advocate you should not regard interaction with the judge as an interference with the smooth presentation of your address. Rather, questions and observations from the Bench should be welcomed because they provide you with an insight into the matters of concern to the judge. That person is about to deliver a reasoned decision either in favour of your client or against your client and therefore anything that concerns him or her should be of concern to you. It follows that when a question or topic is raised by the judge it is generally prudent to deal with it then and there. In some limited circumstances you may wish to inform the court you will be addressing the topic in greater detail in the course of your submissions and to suggest it would be more practical to deal with it in the order you had proposed rather than immediately. In most cases, it will be preferable to deal with the matter as soon as it is raised. The fact that difficult questions come from the Bench does not mean the court is necessarily against your argument. If the court presents you with obstacle after obstacle it does not follow that your case is doomed. On the contrary it may mean the court is favourably disposed to the argument you present but is looking to you for assistance in dealing with the difficult issues that arise. It would be wrong for you to conclude the judge has reached a firm conclusion against your argument. It would be wrong for you not to pursue your argument with appropriate vigour. If you can assist the court to resolve the issues with which the court has difficulty success is likely to follow. Not only should you welcome questions from the judge, but you should be concerned if the judge remains silent. Silence may mean a trouble free address for you but, in those circumstances, you will have no idea whether your argument is being silently accepted or silently rejected. You will have no idea whether there are issues that are of concern to the court. You will have no idea whether or not your treatment of various problems that have arisen in the course of the hearing is appealing to the court. You will not be provided with the opportunity to deal with matters that may be seen by the court as an impediment to your client’s case. A silent court leaves you in limbo and you will not know what (if anything) is a cause for concern or may be regarded as a flaw or deficiency in your argument.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
107
When, in the course of discussion, a judge suggests a view of the case different from your own it does not necessarily reflect an attack upon your case. It does not, of itself, suggest the court has settled on a different view from your own. You may find the judge is merely suggesting an alternative way to deal with the issues that have arisen. However, when the court suggests an answer to a problem identified with your argument, or an alternative approach to the argument you have presented, you should not adopt the view of the court without proper consideration. It may be that the judge has not fully appreciated the situation or has overlooked some evidence or is simply wrong. You should not adopt what falls from the Bench in an opportunistic way simply because it does fall from the Bench. You are there to present your own case and you must do so. If what falls from the court is, after proper review, of assistance to you then you may wish to adopt it. If it reflects a flawed response then you should ensure you make that clear to the court. In this regard you should bear in mind that it is likely you will be more familiar with the issues and the law presented by the particular case than is the judge. You will have had time to reflect upon your argument. In most instances the judge will have only recently been called upon to consider the circumstances of your case and will not have the benefit of the substantial preparation which you have undertaken. If you do not know the answer to a question posed by the court then you should acknowledge that to be so. In most cases your thorough preparation will mean you are able to deal with difficult questions then and there. If you are caught by surprise, you may wish to deal with the issue by indicating to the judge that you will take some instructions during the course of the next
108
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
adjournment. At that time you will be able to properly consider the matter and formulate an appropriate response. If you do not know the answer it is obviously dangerous to try to wing it. You may do more harm by proceeding in that way than frankly admitting you need to consider the issue and taking time to consider your position. If you do decide to wing it, it will soon become obvious you do not know the answer. Discussion with the Bench is something to be welcomed and treated as a further opportunity to advance the interests of your client.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
109
Advocacy: the Appeal “Appeal: in law, to put the dice in the box for another throw.” Ambrose Bierce
Appellate advocacy is different from first instance advocacy. The most obvious difference is that this is not the first time the matter has been considered by a court. You do not start with a clean slate. Your appearance will be designed to persuade the appellate court that another tribunal has erred in a way that needs to be corrected. Alternatively, if you appear for the respondent, you will be seeking to persuade the appellate court that intervention is unnecessary. Commonly the appeal will focus upon the considered reasons of another court recorded in a written judgment or the transcript of proceedings. The slate has been written upon, the water has been muddied and the course of the proceedings will be dictated by what has occurred below. As always, thorough preparation will be the key to successful advocacy in the appellate jurisdiction. It will be necessary for you to achieve a detailed familiarity with the facts of the case both as revealed in the judgment and as appears from the evidence presented to the tribunal at first instance. If you come to the proceedings for the first time at the appellate level, an effective way of mastering the facts may be by the use of a chronology. The chronology should record all of the relevant facts and identify the location at which the supporting evidence can be found. Of course you will also need to have a familiarity with and understanding of the applicable law. Once you are familiar with the facts and the law it is prudent to revisit the grounds of appeal which, in many cases, will have been drawn in haste by another. The grounds of appeal are the first opportunity you have to influence the course of the appeal and to commence to persuade the court. All too often the grounds of appeal which appear in the Appeal Book and have been the basis of all pre-hearing consideration of the matter by the members of the appellate court, will not be the grounds to be argued. At the commencement of the appeal counsel will indicate to the court that certain identified grounds are not to be pursued and certain other grounds are to be added. The effect of such an announcement is to tell the court that whatever preparation has been undertaken based upon the abandoned grounds has been a waste of time. It is therefore prudent to ensure at an early time that the grounds of appeal reflect the argument to be presented. It is desirable that the grounds of appeal are set out in a logical order and, where there are numerous grounds dealing with the one topic, those grounds are grouped in a convenient way. It is unnecessary and unproductive to state the same ground of appeal in numerous different ways. Similarly it is unwise to include every possible ground of appeal no matter how weak. Be selective.
110
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Only pursue the grounds that have real merit. A ground of appeal when pleaded should make clear the cause of the complaint. The reader should be aware of the precise nature of the problem. Your next opportunity to persuade will be in the written argument or outline of argument presented in accordance with the rules of the court. I have previously discussed this issue and will not repeat what I there said except to emphasise the importance of recognising and taking full advantage of the opportunity to persuade that arises. Included in the written material to be placed before the court will be your list of authorities. That list should be limited to the leading authorities. There need only be reference to other cases if there is some compelling reason for so doing. So far as is possible references should be to the authorised reports and should include the page or paragraph numbers to which attention is to be drawn. It is of little help to refer simply to the Tasmanian Dams Case or, indeed, any substantial case without directing attention to the relevant part of that case. Save for exceptional circumstances, it is likely you will limit your list of authorities to those of Australian courts. This will be especially so where the appeal is to be heard in the intermediate courts. Whilst a novel point may call for a consideration of the position beyond Australia, this will not be common in the intermediate courts. In the High Court there is clearly greater scope for reference to what is happening in other jurisdictions and in particular in England, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. In preparing for an appeal you may wish to commence with what one of Australia’s leading appellate advocates, Mr D F Jackson QC, calls the “basic approach”. He described this as follows: There is no special mystery about appeals. As in any litigation the secret of success is to know what you are doing, and why. In appeals that manifests itself in three broad issues. They are: •
what aspect of the judgment below is being attacked?
•
why is it said to be wrong?
•
what is the consequence if it is wrong? 1
Again you will develop a case strategy and the presentation of the argument will at all times be informed by reference to that strategy. As part of the strategy you will consider what is and is not to be argued, the order in which it is to be presented and the most persuasive method of presentation. In addressing these issues in preparing for your oral presentation in court you should bear in mind the court will have received and considered your written submissions: There is no point in re-reading those to the court. There is no point in presenting the same argument in exactly the same way as appears in the written material. To do so is to waste an opportunity. A fresh approach consistent with your written submission is called for. As part of your preparation you should anticipate the questions likely to come from the Bench. Such questions are likely to flag significant concerns held by
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
111
the questioner and, if persuasively answered, can be decisive of the outcome of the appeal. You should therefore anticipate such questions and, when the question is asked, if possible, address it immediately. If you cannot do so without laying some ground work then let the court know you will answer the question and the method by which you propose to do so. Providing an answer to the question should be a priority.
1.
112
Appellate Advocacy D F Jackson QC (1991-1992), Vol 8 Aust Bar Rev 245.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Presenting the Appeal “Appellate Judges “are the ones who lurk in the hills while the battle rages; then, when the battle is over, they descend from the hills and shoot all the wounded”.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg
In presenting the appeal it is important to commence and finish strongly. There is little point starting with a formal opening that recites the history of the litigation or informs the court that this is an appeal from such and such a court where judgment was delivered on such and such a date, and so on. The court already knows that information. Repeating it is a waste of time and a waste of the opportunity you have to make an immediate impact. Mason J, in an article published in (1984) 58 ALJ 537, said of the opening in cases before the High Court: All too often counsel fail to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the opening—to make an impact on the minds of the judges before they begin to move forward on their inexorable journey to a conclusion. There is no need for a ritual incantation of the history of the litigation. The court is aware of it. Better to begin with a statement of the issues, unless the case lends itself to an exhilarating or humorous introduction. It should be pointed out that opportunities for an exhilarating or humorous introduction will be rare indeed. Be careful. Such an opening has every prospect of falling flat, leaving you feeling embarrassed and groping for a way to get the argument back on track. The more senior you are and the more comfortable you are with the court and the court is with you, the greater will be the opportunity for such an opening. For the rest of us the opportunity is probably best left for another day. Although an interesting presentation is part of effective advocacy the court is more interested in substance than style. The opening, and particularly the early stages of the opening, provides an opportunity to dictate the course and content of the appeal. It is an opportunity not to be wasted. In your opening you should endeavour to get to your major point as soon as possible. In so doing you need to let the court know where you are going and how you propose to get there. You should avoid the need for the court to enquire of you: where is this submission taking us? The direction of the argument should be clear to the court. If the members of the court are asking themselves what the submission is all about they will be experiencing difficulty in appreciating the impact of what you are intending to convey. In presenting your appeal it is important not to read lengthy passages to the court. This prohibition includes passages from relevant case law, the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
113
transcript of the proceedings below and, most importantly, the judgment the subject of appeal. If a lengthy passage has to be read then identify it for the court and allow the court to read it for itself. Throughout the presentation of your argument, bear in mind that your familiarity with the case will necessarily be greater than that of the judge’s. This logically follows from your detailed preparation. You will need to ensure the elements of the case essential to your argument are clearly stated and placed in a contextual framework for the court. It must be plain that each of the members of the court has an appreciation of the crucial facts and issues.1 Whilst presenting your argument take care before adopting arguments provided to you by the court. Often a judge will make suggestions as to how you put your argument. That will often be introduced with words to the effect of: “You put the argument this way…” or “you would say…” In many cases this can be seen as (and may be) reflecting a measure of support for what you have been endeavouring to say. You should carefully consider the suggestion made by the judge and only adopt it if it accurately reflects your argument. The danger of too readily accepting suggestions from the Bench is, when considered in subsequent debate with the judge or other members of the court, the argument falls flat. That may lead to a significant lessening of the impact of the balance of your argument. Alternatively the judge may simply be seeking to encapsulate your argument in order to ensure it is understood or to raise an obstacle. Of course the judge may also be looking to assist you by clarifying a particular matter. If there is a weakness in your case or your argument it is best to acknowledge that to be so and to confront it. Avoiding it will not make the problem go away but rather will emphasise it when it emerges through the submissions of other counsel or through the questions of the court. Kirby J, in an article
114
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
written in 1995, and which will repay reading, said: Directness in an advocate is a great strength. Candid acknowledgement of a problem may even enlist the assistance of the court, if the merits suggest that course. When the court is constituted by more than one judge you should endeavour to engage all of the judges. It is a mistake to address your remarks to one judge rather than seeking to retain eye contact with all members of the Bench. It is easy to become focussed upon the presiding judge or the judge who is asking most of the questions. Endeavour to avoid doing so. Whilst appellate advocacy is necessarily different from other advocacy, the principles and practices you have applied elsewhere should underlay the presentation of your argument to the appellate body.
1.
Ten Rules of Appellate Advocacy, Kirby J (1995) 69 ALJ 964 at 971.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
115
The Decision to Plead “Justice?-You get justice in the next world. In this one you have the law.” William Gaddis
It is very easy for counsel to regard a plea in mitigation as “just another plea”. This is likely to be so if the nature of your practice involves the making of many pleas in relation to offences commonplace before the courts e.g. for traffic offences in the Local Court. It is necessary for counsel for the prosecution and for the accused to remember that each plea is important and the presentation of that plea should not be a mechanical exercise following some worn out formula. For defence counsel the importance to your client of the plea is obvious. It is your client who will wear the consequences of any failure on your part to place before the court all relevant material in the most effective way. Whilst there will be a significant difference between your preparation for, and presentation of, material in support of a plea to a minor traffic offence when compared with one of the more serious offences under the Criminal Code, it is necessary to bear in mind that each involves an exercise of advocacy skills. Effective advocacy is important at all levels of the criminal justice system. The first matter for consideration is whether there will be a plea of guilty and, if so, to what offence. At that time it will also be necessary to determine whether the factual basis of the plea can be agreed. The decision whether or not to plead guilty is one for the accused alone. It is not for counsel. Counsel for the defence is duty bound to advise the accused of the benefits of entering a plea including the fact that such a plea is regarded as a mitigating factor by the courts in the sentencing process. Where necessary the advocate is entitled to address all aspects of the case and provide advice in strong terms that the accused is unlikely to escape conviction and of the benefits of a plea in the particular case. However in the end the accused must be allowed complete freedom of choice as to the plea he or she wishes to make. In circumstances where an accused person denies having committed the offence charged but nonetheless insists upon pleading guilty to it, counsel may continue to represent the accused person but only after advising the accused of the consequences of such a course of action. In particular, the accused should be informed that submissions in mitigation will necessarily have to be presented on the basis that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. It is obviously not possible to have the client plead guilty and then present submissions inconsistent with that plea.
116
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
If your client denies having committed the offence but insists upon entering a plea of guilty it is prudent for you to obtain written instructions from the client, if that be possible, that a plea of guilty is to be entered. In the event that a plea of guilty is to be entered defence counsel should endeavour to settle with the prosecutor the facts that are to be placed before the court by agreement. If agreement can be reached this is to the advantage of all and especially the accused. It enables both counsel to have better control of the plea and to make submissions they can confidently assume will not be contradicted by the other side. For counsel for the defence it allows for better control and presentation of the plea in mitigation on behalf of the client. It avoids nasty surprises. Included in the matters that should be agreed with the prosecution prior to the entry of a plea of guilty is the criminal history of your client, the terms of any victim impact statement to be provided to the court and any other information of a negative kind upon which the prosecutor proposes to rely. In the event you are unable to wholly agree matters with the Crown you should endeavour to identify with precision the areas of dispute and to limit those areas so that plea in mitigation in relation to other areas may proceed without fear of contradiction. When agreed facts are to be presented to the court it is important both prosecution and defence counsel take care to ensure the negotiation process does not produce a set of facts that does not make sense or is inconsistent with the plea to be entered. It should be remembered that the sentencing judge is not obliged to accept and act upon the facts as agreed by the parties. In Chow v DPP (NSW) (1992) 28 NSWLR 593, Kirby P (as he then was) observed: The foregoing rules do not oblige a sentencing judge passively, and unquestioningly, to accept facts as the basis for sentencing which are presented by the prosecution and/or the accused. The judge’s sentencing discretion is to be exercised in the public interest. Even where the prosecution and the accused are agreed, they cannot fetter the judge’s performance of the judicial function by their plea bargaining... A statement of agreed facts may appear to the sentencing judge to be inadequate for sentencing purposes. The judge may feel the need for further material, for example, by way of pre-sentence report to assist in the performance of the sentencing function. The parties cannot forbid the judge to seek such assistance. If the agreed facts disclose a more serious offence than that to which the accused has pleaded guilty then both counsel, and in particular the prosecutor, should be in a position to justify the acceptance of the plea in fact made. Whilst it is not for the court to determine the charge presented or the plea thereto, it is for the court to determine the appropriate sentence. In providing your client with advice to plead guilty it is obviously important you do not raise unrealistic expectations as to the likely outcome of the proceedings. If a custodial penalty is likely then the client should be aware of that fact. If you raise unrealistic expectations in your client then the repercussions of your actions will be visited upon you when the sentence is handed down.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
117
Preparing the Plea Wherever possible, defence counsel should take instructions at an early time. Those instructions should be as detailed as circumstances permit and should cover the facts and circumstances of the offending and the identification of any mitigatory information that may be available. In taking instructions it is important to remember your client is unlikely to be aware of what is and is not relevant, let alone important. It is therefore necessary for you to carefully probe to obtain the information necessary for the proper presentation of the plea. You will wish to explore with the client the areas of information that are likely to assist. You will need detailed instructions both as to the offence and as to the offender. The information you obtain at this time will be used by you in providing advice to the client as to whether or not a plea of guilty should be entered and, if so, as to which charge or charges. The information will also lead you to other avenues of investigation for the purposes of presentation of the plea. For example, as a consequence of your discussions with your client, you may identify matters that require the gathering of further information such as: employment details from an employer and the likely consequences for that employment of the plea; the identity of referees; the need for any psychiatric or psychological assessment of your client; further information from others regarding the family and home circumstances of your client and so on. For defence counsel, if a psychological or psychiatric assessment is to be made of your client that should be attended to at an early time. When the report of the psychologist or psychiatrist is obtained you should ensure it deals with all of the issues you regard as necessary for the proper presentation of the plea. You will also need to ensure you fully understand what is being said by the expert and, if there be doubt, you should contact the expert for clarification. Having determined that a plea of guilty will be entered to an identified charge or charges it is necessary to prepare for the plea. As a matter of practicality the preparation of the plea and the information provided to the court in respect of the offence and offender will vary depending upon the circumstances. Obviously a plea to a minor offence will not usually require the detailed preparation and presentation that will be involved in an offence of a more serious kind. It is important that you tailor your plea to the circumstances of the particular matter and that you bear in mind what is appropriate for the nature of the offence. When preparing for a plea, depending upon the nature of the offence, there are likely to be many things for both the prosecutor and counsel for the defence to consider. 118
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
A convenient summary of some matters to be considered is to be found in sections 5 and 6 of the Sentencing Act. You may wish to use those sections as the source of a checklist for topics likely to be necessary to address. Each counsel will need to determine how he or she is going to deal with these matters in advance. As a general proposition counsel should be conversant with the provisions of the legislation creating the offence along with the requirements of the Sentencing Act and other relevant principles relating to the sentencing of offenders for offences of the kind then before the court. Consideration should be given to the need to address the principles of sentencing found in those locations. Issues such as the need for general and specific deterrence, the totality principle, the need for parity in sentencing with co-accused and the like need to be considered in each case. It is important both counsel be familiar with the facts that are to be presented to the court and the surrounding circumstances of the offence. Counsel should be in a position to inform the court of relevant provisions within the legislation creating the offence including the maximum penalty and any provisions of the Sentencing Act or any other legislation that may have an impact upon the capacity of the court to deal with the matter. Both counsel should be aware of the sentencing options open to the court and be in a position to discuss those with the court should that become necessary. Counsel need to have in mind the dispositions they regard as appropriate and submissions should be addressed and guided by a “case strategy”. Defence counsel, in particular, should be aware of the likely and appropriate disposition of the matter. As I indicated on an earlier occasion, the accused should be made aware of the likely disposition. In making submissions to the court it is inadvisable for counsel to call upon the sentencing to impose what must be an inappropriate sentence. To do so is to detract from other submissions that you make in favour of your client because those submissions must flow from an unrealistic assessment of the criminality or culpability involved. If the matter is a serious matter then you should face up to it. The plea of guilty acknowledges an offence of a particular level of seriousness has been committed and if that offence is correctly characterised as “serious” then you, as counsel, should acknowledge it to be so. The court relies upon both prosecution and defence counsel at all times but this is particularly so in the making of a plea in mitigation. The court will accept a lot of information from the bar table based upon the unchallenged assertions of counsel. It follows that counsel must take great care in presenting information to the court to ensure the court is not misled or left under a misapprehension as to the circumstances of the offence or the offender or as to the impact of any legislative or other authority upon the matter at hand.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
119
Presenting the Plea In nearly every case the plea in mitigation and the whole sentencing process will be an extremely stressful and daunting experience for your client. For the sake of all concerned, including your client, one of your aims will be to ensure the exercise proceeds as smoothly as circumstances permit. You should assist your client to be as comfortable as possible in the circumstances that prevail. This will include ensuring your client knows what to expect in the course of proceedings. It is important you explain the procedure to your client including the roles of the various people in the court, where and when your client should stand, what he or she will be asked and how he or she is expected to respond. As with other exercises in advocacy, your plea should be prepared in advance. You will develop and follow a predetermined case strategy. You will determine in advance those issues you propose to address and the order in which you propose to address them for maximum effect. When delivering the plea you should be clear in your language and you should, so far as possible, be succinct in your presentation. You will, so far as time and resources permit, have available to you all information necessary to permit you to present a full and effective plea on behalf of your client. You will have considered in advance of the presentation of the plea problems which may arise both from the position adopted by the Crown and from matters likely to be raised by the Bench and you will have settled upon methods of satisfactorily resolving these. If you are to present written character references on behalf of your client you should endeavour to obtain those at an early time. Insofar as is possible you will ensure each referee acknowledges in the body of the reference that he or she is aware of the offending of your client. Defence counsel will determine in advance whether to call evidence in the course of the plea. You will need to consider whether to call evidence from your client and whether to call evidence from any of the referees. In making your decision whether to call the client to give evidence careful consideration must be given to whether such a course will be to his or her advantage. There will be cases where the course to be adopted will be clear. In some cases it will be necessary to call your client in order to satisfy the court of some particular matter. In others it may be clear the client should not be called. In most cases it will be a matter for the careful exercise of judgment in all the circumstances. If you propose to call character evidence you should ensure you first speak with the witness. Do not call the witness cold. Before the witness enters the witness box you will be conversant with what
120
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
he or she is prepared to say and, importantly, what the witness is not prepared to say. I am aware of one instance where a character witness was asked to give evidence as to the past honesty of the prisoner and did so. However counsel, without instructions, went on to suggest to the witness that his client was a good worker only to be met with the response: “no, he is a bludger.” Both counsel should be in a position to deal with any issues that may arise as to the law relating to the offence, the law relating to sentencing, the facts of the particular matter and the range of appropriate dispositions. Defence counsel will have informed the client of the available dispositions and obtained instructions as to each. Counsel for the prosecution will have considered what is and what is not within the range of appropriate dispositions and be in a position to address those issues where necessary. In some cases referring the court to comparative sentences will not be necessary and in others it will. Some judicial officers do not find great assistance in being referred to comparative sentences whilst others regard it as an advantage. Much will depend upon the nature of the case. You should be in a position to meet the needs of the court whatever they may be. It is necessary to bear in mind that the appropriate sentence will always depend upon the individual circumstances of the case. Often a particularly difficult issue for defence counsel will be the question of remorse. Submissions are frequently made that the client feels remorse or is sorry for what he or she has done. If such a submission is made as a bald assertion from the bar table it is less likely to receive as much weight in the sentencing process as it would if supported by reference to an objective source e.g. to the making of restitution, to the immediate acceptance of responsibility by your client, by information provided by others as to the impact of the offending upon the offender and so on. Genuine remorse is obviously an important factor in the sentencing process and great care should be taken in identifying information regarding any remorse that your client may feel and presenting it in the strongest possible light. Although making a plea in mitigation or presenting the prosecution case on a plea is something that may be done by you with great frequency you should remind yourself of the importance of the occasion to both the community and to your client. You should endeavour to ensure that you do not treat such an occasion as “just another plea”.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
121
The Application for Bail It sometimes appears that the application for bail is something of an afterthought on the part of counsel. That should never be the case. The importance of the application to your client is obvious. An unsuccessful application means further time in custody and that is likely to be an unhappy experience for your client and provide a poor start to your professional relationship. It follows that careful thought must be given to the question of bail prior to the first appearance before the court. Of course in many cases the position regarding bail will be clear. The obtaining of a grant of bail, in some cases, will be little more than a formality. However in such cases you should prepare on the basis that the court will need to be convinced a grant of bail is appropriate. In other cases it will be clear a grant of bail is not an option. In many cases a thoroughly prepared application is likely to be required. As with most appearances before a court appropriate preparation is vital to the presentation of an application for bail. It is necessary that a case strategy appropriate to the circumstances be developed and followed. The starting point for your preparation will be obtaining a thorough knowledge of the workings of the Bail Act. That Act provides for “the granting of bail to accused persons in or in connection with criminal proceedings.” I do not propose to review the Act in detail. It provides for circumstances where there is a presumption in favour of bail, a presumption against bail and where there is no presumption either way i.e. the situation is neutral. You will need to bear in mind where the onus lays as a consequence of those provisions. Of particular relevance to your preparation for the application will be the operation of s24 of the Act which identifies the criteria a court must take into consideration in reaching its decision on a bail application. The level of your preparation will obviously depend upon the time available to you. In many cases time will be limited and you will have to do your best in the circumstances. Where you have adequate time for preparation of the bail application there are many things to consider. Some of those are spelled out in s24 of the Act and you will give consideration to each matter there identified. What is important for the application will vary according to the nature of the offence and the nature of the offender. The fact that the offender has a criminal history does not necessarily mean that bail will not be granted. Such a history may indicate the client has previously honoured undertakings made to the court and can call upon his or her history as support for the making of a grant of bail on this occasion. The fact that the offence is serious does not necessarily mean bail will not be granted. Bail is regularly granted in matters as serious as murder.
122
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
It will be necessary to obtain clear and detailed instructions from your client on the issues likely to arise. In many cases these will include an effort to identify an acceptable surety and the development of a plan for what will occur in the event your client is released. For example, you will need to know where he or she intends to live and work and what assurances can be provided to the court as to the attendance by your client at the hearing and that there will be no interference with witnesses. The prospect that your client may reoffend whilst on bail is another issue to be addressed. If bail is likely to be granted subject to conditions then it will be necessary for you to explain to the client the impact of those conditions and ensure the client fully understands that a breach of such a condition is likely to result in further time in custody. When obtaining instructions from your client as to conditions that may be imposed, it is necessary to ensure he or she appreciates the importance of the undertaking to be given. If the client is unlikely to be able to comply with a condition (e.g. a reporting condition, residential condition or curfew) you should be in a position to inform the judicial authority of that problem. Agreeing to conditions which a client is unable or unlikely to meet is to set the client up for failure leading to arrest and a period in custody whilst the matter is revisited. If acceptable sureties are identified you will need to speak with those persons to confirm their willingness and ability to accept the responsibility. The surety needs to be made aware of the likely consequences for the surety if the bail conditions are breached. It is prudent to have frank discussions with the prosecutor before the application proceeds. It may be possible to negotiate an agreed basis for the grant of bail which can then be put to the court as, effectively, a joint submission. Alternatively it may be possible to reduce the area of conflict
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
123
between prosecution and defence so only the matters in dispute need be addressed. In your discussions with the prosecutor you should obtain information as to your client’s criminal history, the history of compliance with bail undertakings, the submissions to be made by the prosecutor in relation to the strength of the Crown case and the general attitude of the Crown to the whole of the application. Wherever possible, before making an application for bail, you should give the prosecution notice of your intention so there is no application from the prosecutor for an adjournment to obtain instructions or to prepare to meet the application. A matter of interest to the court will be the length of time your client is likely to remain in custody prior to trial in the event that bail is not granted. You should therefore make enquiry of the Court Registry as to when the matter is likely to be able to be given a hearing date and you will be able to provide that information to the court. Any court appearance that involves the liberty of your client is clearly a serious occasion. You should ensure your preparation permits you to effectively present the strongest case for the relief your client seeks.
124
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Interlocutory Applications “Never mistake motion for action.” Ernest Hemingway
The Supreme Court Rules are designed to limit the need for interlocutory applications to the court. The Rules now permit matters that once called for, or allowed for, the intervention of the court to proceed without reference to the court. The Rules positively discourage the making of unnecessary applications by providing that each party shall bear its own costs of an interlocutory application “unless the court otherwise orders” (r63.18). The application of this rule is considered in TTE Pty Ltd v Ken Day Pty Ltd (1992) 2 NTLR 143, Yow v NT Gymnastic Association Inc. (1991) 1 NTLR 180 and Johnson v The Northern Territory of Australia [2015] NTSC 15. Before launching an interlocutory application you should consider all available alternative approaches. Bear in mind that, once commenced, such proceedings have the potential to become significant legal battles in their own right. They have the potential to divert resources from, and to distract you from, the preparation of the substantive proceedings. Notwithstanding the effect of r63.18 there is also the prospect that debilitating cost orders may follow an unsuccessful or unnecessary application. In the event you have concluded that such an application is necessary you will then turn to a consideration of how to proceed. The approach of the advocate to a defended interlocutory application will reflect the approach adopted for a substantive hearing. Preparation will be the key. It will be necessary to formulate a case strategy relevant to the interlocutory application and to be guided by that strategy throughout the presentation of the application. At an early time in the course of preparation you will clearly identify the source of the power the court is being asked to exercise. This will usually be by reference to an identified rule within the relevant Rules of Court or by reference to the inherent power of the court. If you are to rely upon the inherent power of the court, the basis of that submission should be determined in advance. It is unlikely to be enough to merely assert that the court has inherent power. In many cases reference to authority will also be necessary and you should have the relevant authorities to hand. If evidence is to be produced in support of the application you will ensure the appropriate affidavit material is available in admissible form. You should not permit yourself to be placed in a position where you have to seek to give evidence from the bar table to cover a deficiency in the material you present. The need for such an application reflects inadequate preparation on your part.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
125
If your opponent is not cooperative you may need an adjournment to enable the appropriate information to be provided to the court in admissible form. An adjournment is likely to have unnecessary and adverse cost consequences for your client. When evidence is to be produced on affidavit in relation to an interlocutory matter, careful consideration should be given to the identity of the deponent. This consideration will necessarily be in light of the proceedings as a whole and not just by reference to the application immediately to hand. It needs to be borne in mind that the deponent may be required to attend to be examined before the court on the interlocutory application (r40.04). You will need to ensure the chosen deponent is both willing and available to be crossexamined should it become necessary. Whether you want a particular witness exposed to cross-examination at an early stage in the proceedings may also be a matter for careful thought. If a witness is vague or is likely to present poorly for some reason you will not want to make that fact known to your opponent by presenting him or her for cross-examination on a preliminary matter. It may be preferable to avoid exposing that potential witness to attack so early in the proceedings. You may prefer to have someone else who is familiar with the relevant material swear the affidavit. In choosing your deponent you should consider the use of r43.03 which provides that, on an interlocutory application, an affidavit may contain a statement of fact based on information and belief if the grounds of that information or belief are set out. One option commonly adopted, often without apparent thought for the consequences, is for the legal adviser to become the deponent. Before you rush into making the affidavit yourself you should remember you may thereby become the person who is required
126
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
to attend for examination before the court. It is obviously inappropriate for you to be both counsel and a witness in relation to the matter and you will need to fully consider the implications of becoming the source of evidence in relation to a particular part of the proceedings, even at an early stage. When you appear before the court to argue an interlocutory application you should present your argument in an ordered fashion. You will need to identify the evidence upon which you rely and be in a position to meet any objections to that evidence which may be made by your opponent. You should have available to you all of the materials upon which you rely in a readily accessible form so you can deal with any questions that may arise in discussion with the court. If you have prepared a chronology it is often convenient to identify the source of the information contained in the chronology by reference to the affidavit material or to the pleadings. This will enable the court to quickly comprehend the factual basis upon which the argument is presented and will assist in the formulation of reasons for decision. As with all appearances before a court or tribunal you should endeavour to present the application in a persuasive, interesting and ordered manner ensuring you deal with all necessary matters in an effective yet concise way. Your case strategy will at all times guide the presentation of the argument.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
127
Written Submissions “The covers of this book are too far apart.” Ambrose Bierce
In Australia the tradition of the Bar is an oral tradition. Historically there has been little emphasis placed on the need for the advocate to develop skills in the presentation of written argument. That position is changing. Over the years the call for, and the use of, written submissions has increased. It must be anticipated that this movement will continue. The ability to produce effective and persuasive written argument is a skill the advocate must develop. Written submissions may be employed in many areas of advocacy. As with the presentation of oral argument, the presentation of written argument must be tailored to suit the circumstances. The outline of argument that precedes an appeal will be a quite different document from the detailed written submissions produced at the completion of a lengthy civil trial. It is necessary for the advocate to be conscious of the needs of the occasion and of the audience being addressed. In the appellate setting the potential impact of the written submission should be understood and exploited. This is the first opportunity the advocate has to direct, or at least influence, the thinking of the court. Not only does the written argument have initial impact, if well-structured it should have ongoing impact. When the hearing is at an end and the members of the court retire to write their judgments one of the sources to which they will turn is the written material. In 1984 Mason J of the High Court lamented that: Written submissions tend to be either too lengthy so that the arguments are lost in the forest of detail, or too scanty so that the points are listed seriatim like particulars of negligence without the supporting elaboration which gives flesh and blood to the bare bones of the proposition. In the process, persuasion which is the object of all presentation, seems to have been overlooked.1 In preparing your written submission it should be borne in mind that it is your opportunity to present your argument in a concise and direct manner. The argument can be presented and considered in its entirety by your intended audience without the interruptions or distractions that sometimes affect oral argument. In that sense it has both an immediate and an enduring impact. It sets the tone and directs the course for what is to follow. It may then be revisited when the judgment is being written. The written argument presented in advance of an appeal should be concise and to the point. In some courts the extent and form of presentation of the written material is governed by the rules or practice directions of the court. For example in the High Court on the hearing of an appeal the written
128
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
submissions are to be no more than a specified number of pages in length except with the leave of the court. The practice directions of that court also address the requirements as to form and content. Whilst you must comply with the requirements of the courts it is necessary to present the argument in a powerful yet succinct way. Careful consideration must be given to what is to be included, what is to be omitted and the most effective order of presentation. The structure and content of both opening and closing submissions require particular attention. The interest of the reader must be engaged and held throughout the document. As with oral argument the advocate should avoid the temptation to address all issues that may arise. It is necessary to be selective and deal only with the issues worthy of consideration in that forum. The issues dealt with should be addressed in a logical and persuasive way. The argument should be designed to capture and hold the attention of the court. It should stimulate the interest of the court. Generally speaking it is unnecessary and unwise to include substantial quotations or extracts from other written material in written submissions on appeal. A short summary of such material and a clear identification of the location of the source of the information will suffice. Where appropriate the source material can be presented to the court in an accompanying folder. The written submissions should be such that it is possible for the court to take the submission and use it as the basis for the judgment to follow. It is the sign of a well-constructed written submission that the advocate sees it reflected in the judgment ultimately delivered. In preparing the document it will be necessary to consider the audience to whom it is addressed. If the matter is before a superior court it is unlikely to be necessary to remind the members of the court of basic principles of statutory interpretation or sentencing or whatever the topic being addressed may be. Insofar as it is possible the document should be attractively packaged. In longer documents the use of headings to identify what is being addressed at a particular location is of great assistance. The use of a clear font and print of reasonable size is obviously desirable. In preparing written submissions it is necessary to bear in mind that your subsequent oral submissions should match those earlier lodged in writing. In recent times the Court of Appeal in New South Wales has delivered warnings in this regard. It has reminded practitioners that the court may order that costs thrown away by an adjournment be paid by the legal practitioner where the oral submissions failed to match those lodged in writing and that, in an extreme case, the court may decline to hear oral argument outside the parameters of the written argument unless there has been some good explanation for the disparity: Lake Macquarie City Council v McKellar (2002) NSWCA 90. An interesting article dealing with written submissions in appellate matters is to be found at (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149. The importance of written submissions to the effective presentation of a case should not be underrated by the advocate. 1.
(1984) 58 ALJ 537 at 541.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
129
The Urgent Interlocutory Injunction “I will prepare and someday my chance will come.” Abraham Lincoln
If the application you are instructed to make is for an urgent interlocutory injunction there are special considerations to bear in mind. The success or otherwise of such an application can, in many cases, mean success or failure in the whole action. As is noted in Injunctions: A Practical Handbook 1. In some cases, the result of a final hearing will be purely academic after the interlocutory result; in others, the passage of time will cause parties to lose interest; but most importantly the determination of an application for interlocutory injunction will often give the parties to a dispute an insight into the approach of the court in determining matters in dispute. The granting of an interlocutory injunction calls for the exercise of a discretion by the court. Where there is a serious issue to be tried the court will be called upon to consider where the balance of convenience lies. That will usually involve a delicate act of balancing the competing interests of the parties. Often there will be no clearly correct, or even preferable, response to the problem that arises. In many cases one party or another will be substantially disadvantaged by whatever decision the court reaches. In those cases the slightest of matters may sway the court in one direction or another. In such circumstances the skill of the advocate in presenting a persuasive argument will be vital to the interests of the client. Any failure to present the case for the client in a clear, compelling and forceful way may have consequences for the client of an ongoing and significant kind. Such consequences are likely to reach far beyond the outcome of the application immediately before the court. Applications of this kind are often dealt with on short notice and in an emotionally charged atmosphere. There is little time for preparation of evidential materials to be placed before the court let alone for reviewing and refining issues of law. Given the nature of such applications it is prudent for the advocate to be aware, in advance, of the relevant law in relation to applications for interlocutory injunctive relief. In order to avoid delay and possible embarrassment when instructions are received, preparation of a general kind for such applications should take place in anticipation that instructions may be received on some future occasion. In my view it is highly desirable for an advocate to have researched the topic so he or she has a ready familiarity with the applicable law. It is prudent for the advocate to have created and maintained a precedent file in which
130
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
the leading general authorities relevant to such an application are stored. It should be possible to address any aspect of the law relating to the granting of an injunction by reference to the materials in the file. Also included in that file should be any other information that experience suggests may be of use in presenting or opposing an urgent application. Resort to such a file can then be had on short notice saving precious preparation time and avoiding the possibility that some failure on the part of the advocate will cause embarrassment in the course of the proceedings. When instructions to seek injunctive relief are received the advocate will be able to concentrate upon the issues raised by the factual circumstances of the matter without the need to research the law. This is not an appropriate place to review the law relevant to such applications; however, to demonstrate the desirability of anticipatory preparation, I refer to two matters vital to such applications. First, if the application is to be ex parte, in preparing the material for presentation to the court it must be remembered that there is an obligation on the applicant to bring to the attention of the court all facts material to the application. As is pointed out by Mr Burns: “the entire facts of the case must be fairly and candidly stated. If this is not done, the injunction will be dissolved.” The applicant must demonstrate the utmost good faith. Second, the need for clear instructions to provide the “usual undertaking as to damages” should not be overlooked. The form of the usual undertaking in the Northern Territory is to be found in Practice Direction 3 of 1992. Your client must understand the nature of the undertaking and the possible consequences for him or her of providing it to the court. In a matter that is factually or legally complex, and where time permits, you should consider the use of a chronology and an outline of submissions for presentation to the court prior to or at the commencement of the hearing. In an application of this kind, where the outcome is most likely to be directly affected by the quality of the submissions made by the advocate, you will call upon your early anticipatory preparation and the advocacy skills you have developed elsewhere to present the application in the most persuasive manner possible.
1.
NR Burns, Injunctions: A Practical Handbook (LBC 1988.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
131
Written Submissions After Trial “The pen is the tongue of the mind.” Cervantes
The written submissions presented after a lengthy civil trial will be of a different order from those presented in advance of an appeal or in support of an application. The submissions in such circumstances will be an even more direct attempt to assist the court to write the judgment. Again the more you see of your written submissions reflected in the judgment the greater the compliment to the work you have done. The matters to be addressed in written submissions of this kind will be wider in scope and more detailed in content than submissions on an appeal. Rather than being limited to those matters that are central, the submissions will also address topics that may be of interest to the court including those which may or may not be addressed in the judgment. The submissions will identify and address argument on all topics that may be considered by the court to be relevant to the judgment to be produced. The focus will not be as narrow as in the case of an appeal. The length and detail of the written submissions will reflect the nature of the case. In a simple and straightforward case the scope for the use of written submissions will be limited. The longer the case, the more diverse and complex the issues, the greater the need for written submissions. At the conclusion of a lengthy civil trial the written submissions will be directed towards drawing together the information presented to the court over a period of time. The aim will be to present that information in a succinct and manageable form for the judge to take away and (hopefully) use as a platform for the judgment or, at least, parts of the judgment. It follows that the submissions should be organised in such a way as to enable the judge at a time distant from the hearing to quickly determine where a particular topic is addressed and go straight to it. Where there are many issues to be addressed in a judgment the submissions should be structured to permit the court to focus on each individual topic rather than to have to trawl through the whole document to discover what is submitted in regard to a particular issue. Similarly, if the court has formed a view that a particular matter raised in the course of the hearing is irrelevant, or at least need not be addressed in the reasons for decision, it should be possible for the writing on that topic to be readily identified and put to one side.
132
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Generally speaking, in order to achieve this, the written submissions should, so far as possible, be divided into discrete topics. Depending upon the volume of material to be covered it may be prudent to have an executive summary at the beginning of the submissions which can be quickly read and understood by the judge. If the judge wants more information in relation to a particular topic, or the opportunity to see how the argument is developed, then his or her attention can be directed to an argument presented in greater detail in an attached schedule or under a heading later in the material. However if the judge does not need to have greater elaboration of the argument then he or she can adopt or reject that which appears in the summary and move onto the next topic. Notwithstanding that submissions of this kind will be more expansive than in the case of appeals many of the same observations and warnings continue to apply. The volume of material presented to the court should not be offputting for the judge. Prolixity and repetition should be avoided. The language adopted should continue to be direct and succinct rather than discursive. The argument should be presented in a logical and persuasive way. Where a conclusion is to be drawn from a body of evidence, or where a figure is to be calculated based upon materials introduced during the course of the hearing, the conclusion or figure should be identified in summary form either in the body of the submission or in an executive summary. The calculations or the logical argument that supports the conclusion should be detailed in an attached summary. In effect the advocate should do the work for the judge. The judge should not be left to flounder through voluminous material to ascertain information and then carry out calculations or extract conclusions. Obviously counsel should take great care in this process. An accurate presentation of any source material must be ensured. If the court cannot or does not feel it can rely upon counsel to accurately extract information or carry out calculations then the court will have to undertake the exercise itself. When written submissions are provided to the court it is not necessary to read them to the judge or tediously paraphrase them. You may wish to summarise the material and develop arguments in certain areas, especially areas likely to be significant in resolving the case. Remember the written submissions are an aid to the presentation of the strongest case available to your client. They are to be used in conjunction with your oral submissions in order to persuade the tribunal to a particular point of view. The use of written submissions as a tool of advocacy is now well recognised. It is essential the advocate develop the skills necessary to make effective use of this tool.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
133
The Litigant in Person – Part 1 “Litigation takes the place of sex at middle age.” Gore Vidal
In cases where a litigant appears in person rather than with legal representation, problems are usually created for the court and for any counsel appearing in the matter. Whilst many who choose to be litigants in person may be rational, intelligent and thoughtful, that will not always be the case. It is not unusual to find such people are obsessed by a grievance to the point of lacking any semblance of balance or objectivity regarding the issue. Even in cases where it would be unfair to characterise the litigant as obsessed, he or she may be so close to the problem as to be unable to take an objective view of it. Dealing with such a person requires both patience and skill. Although a particular self-represented litigant may have a good appreciation of the court procedures and a realistic view of what may be achieved in the action that is often not the case. The litigant is unlikely to have any real idea of his or her rights or obligations. They are likely to be confused by the procedures and the language. In many cases the litigant will take the view that all he or she need do is tell their story without regard to, or even knowledge of, the need for an identified cause of action or compliance with rules of evidence. A simple statement of the grievance will suffice. The underlying assumption of the litigant is that such matters can be left to the court to sort out and the court can be trusted to rummage through the information provided and deliver justice. It is generally accepted that a person who is self-represented in proceedings before a court is ordinarily at a disadvantage because of his or her lack of representation.1 Litigation involving a litigant in person is usually conducted in a less efficient manner than other litigation and tends to be prolonged and convoluted.2 When counsel is confronted by a litigant in person, different and sometimes awkward problems arise. Preparation for the case and presentation of the case is likely to be markedly different from what would be expected if the litigant was represented. In the criminal sphere the Judge has a duty to ensure the person charged receives a fair trial. An obligation of a similar kind arises in civil proceedings. In order to ensure a fair trial the trial Judge is obliged to walk a line between assisting the litigant by providing information that will enable him or her to determine how best to conduct the case and not offering the litigant inappropriate “advice, guidance or representation”. The Judge must be sure
134
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
a litigant is sufficiently informed so as to ensure that he or she is able to obtain a fair trial, but must not cross the line by creating the impression that the neutrality of the Judge has been compromised. In criminal proceedings where the accused is self-represented the prosecutor is to some extent in a similar position to the Judge. As Deane J observed in Dietrich v R the prosecutor has a duty to act fairly, however: …it is not part of the function of a prosecutor to advise an accused before the commencement of a trial about the legal issues which might arise in the trial, about what evidence will or will not be admissible in relation to them, about what inquiries should be made to ascertain what evidence is available, about what available evidence should be called, about possible defences, about the possible consequences of cross-examination, about the desirability or otherwise of giving sworn evidence or about any of a multitude of other questions which counsel appearing for an accused must consider.3 In Dietrich v R, Toohey J discussed the role of the prosecutor in such cases and said (354): While the prosecutor must act fairly towards the accused and can offer some assistance, the prosecutor cannot tell the accused how to conduct his or her defence. Indeed, a prosecutor would need to tread carefully in dealing with the accused in order to avoid compromising the prosecutorial role. Difficulties often arise for prosecutors and, in civil proceedings, counsel appearing against the litigant in person, because the court, almost of necessity, looks to opposing counsel for assistance in understanding the case of the self-represented litigant. In order to gain an understanding of the case and carry out its function the court seeks assistance from the only legally qualified person at the Bar table. The problems for counsel who is placed in that position by the court are immediately apparent. How far should (or must) counsel go in identifying, disclosing and stating clearly the case for the litigant in person? The problem will be particularly acute if the litigant in person has not thus far addressed or raised causes of action or defences that may be available and which the opposing counsel would rather not meet or about which counsel may not have sufficient information. In such circumstances, counsel will be in danger of making submissions contrary to the best interests of the client he or she represents. In a criminal matter the prosecutor may be effectively (and possibly most reluctantly) providing advice to the self-represented accused in the process of discussing with the Judge what options may or may not be available to the accused. The same may be the case in civil proceedings. For example, in trying to make sense of a discursive statement of claim drawn by a selfrepresented plaintiff, counsel for the defence may identify causes of action of which the draftsman was not aware. In discussions with the court care is required to avoid being seen to provide advice to the litigant in person. What happens if the advice is wrong or if the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
135
prosecutor or other counsel is not aware of important matters known only to the accused or other party? What happens if the self-represented litigant changes approach in reliance upon something said by counsel and disaster follows? The dangers in dealing with a litigant, who is not bound by the same rules of conduct and who, through ignorance or lack of experience, may be misled or, alternatively, may cynically take unfair advantage of your actions which were designed to assist, is a problem for the advocate. Caution is required at every step.
1.
Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 344-345.
2.
Cachia v Hanes (1993-1994) 179 CLR 403 at 415.
3.
Dietrich v R (supra) at 335.
136
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Litigant in Person – Part 2 “Unrepresented litigants present our courts with significant difficulties.” Kirby P1
I have previously discussed some of the problems that arise for counsel because of the presence of a litigant in person. The topic is large and I offer some further observations. Difficulties are likely to arise long before you get to court. You can expect problems with pleadings and especially obtaining a satisfactory definition of the issues to be addressed at the ultimate hearing. In many cases the pleadings will be confused and contain irrelevant and embarrassing allegations and assertions of “fact”. The causes of action are unlikely to be clearly identified. When a pleading is challenged the court may be expected to allow significant leeway to the litigant to enable the pleading to be placed into an intelligible form. It is not uncommon for the court to take a more generous view of what is an adequate pleading simply to ensure the matter gets on for hearing and an arguable case is not lost on a pleading point. The court may be expected to be more forgiving of procedural and evidentiary errors made by a litigant in person. Whether that should be so may be a matter for legitimate debate but counsel will have to deal with the reality. Further, difficulties may arise because of the duty owed by counsel to the court. There is a duty of candour owed to the court in the presentation of the facts and of the law. As is well known, that duty may at times involve counsel acting to the disadvantage of his or her client. Counsel must not mislead the court but that is “an amorphous obligation and one that creates a difficult burden for counsel appearing against a litigant in person. The capacity of silence to be characterised as misleading in a variety of circumstances is well recognised.”2 In the Northern Territory case of Laferla v Birdon Sands Pty Ltd (1998 unreported) Mildren J said: It is sometimes thought that counsel owes a duty to the unrepresented litigant to ensure that he is assisted to properly put his case to the court. In my opinion counsel owes no duty to the unrepresented litigant. There is surprisingly little written about this topic, as it applies to this type of situation, but the practice of the Bar has always been to draw to the court’s attention any matter which will assist the court to decide the case in accordance with law and to ensure a fair trial. Thus, counsel is required to put before the court any relevant decision of which he is aware and which he believes to be immediately in point, regardless of whether it be for or against his contention. This is so in all cases, regardless of whether a party is represented, but it is interesting that Sir William Boulton in his work “Conduct and Etiquette at the Bar”, 6th edition at page 75, observed that the
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
137
rule “must be observed with particular care in ex parte proceedings and where an opposite party is appearing in person”. Similarly, if a litigant in person fails to call evidence about some matter which is essential to his case, this would be a matter that counsel should bring to the court’s attention so that the court can explain that to the litigant and the option is then open to him. The last sentence of those comments of Mildren J was doubted by Byrne and Leggat.3 They referred to the Professional Conduct Rules and suggested his Honour demanded too much of counsel in seeking to impose an obligation to bring to the attention of the court the failure by a litigant to have called evidence in relation to a matter essential to his or her case. This is not the place to enter into a consideration of which view is correct. The extent of the obligation falling upon counsel may have to be further considered at some time in the future. In the meantime it would be prudent to bear in mind the views expressed by Mildren J in Laferla on the obligations upon counsel when appearing against a litigant in person. A further problem that may arise for counsel opposed to a litigant in person occurs where the trial Judge intervenes in the proceedings under an apparent feeling of obligation to assist the party who is unrepresented and in an effort to ensure the party is not disadvantaged. At some point the intervention of the Judge may become excessive and lead to error occurring. It will be a matter for judgment as to when that point is reached. There is an obligation upon counsel to object to the Judge intervening to the point where the Judge is no longer seen to be maintaining a position of neutrality in the litigation and is not simply ensuring a fair trial occurs. As is pointed out by Byrne and Leggat4 failure to object to the trial Judge’s excessive interventions may constitute a waiver or may estop a subsequent complaint. Counsel should raise with the trial Judge the prospect that the intervention of the Judge is such that proceedings may become unfair to the other side or that those proceedings may, at least, no longer be seen to be fair. If such conduct on the part of the Judge continues then counsel should make an application to the trial Judge to disqualify him or herself. In any private dealings counsel may have with a litigant in person outside of the courtroom, great care should be exercised. This will be especially so if “without prejudice” discussions are to be undertaken. The capacity for misunderstanding and subsequent misrepresentation is obvious. It may be difficult to ascertain the extent to which the litigant has correctly understood what is being put. Of some concern may be the extent to which the litigant misconstrues what is said. The repercussions for counsel of any misunderstanding may be serious and ongoing. In my view it is prudent for any discussions between counsel and the litigant in person to be witnessed by someone who can subsequently be called upon to confirm what took place. Where possible, notes should be kept. The realisation that your opponent is a litigant in person is a matter that will cause you to revisit your approach to the case you have to prepare and present. A fresh and different approach will be called for. 1.
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 537.
2.
Byrne and Leggat: Litigants in Person – Procedural and Ethical Issues for Barristers (1999) 19 Australian Bar Review 41 at 45.
3.
Byrne and Leggat (supra) at 46.
4.
Byrne and Leggat (supra) at 44.
138
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
The Sensitive Question In many trials, both civil and criminal, it is necessary to ask a witness questions relating to matters which the witness will consider distasteful, offensive, discomforting and, possibly, quite distressing. Such questions may arise because they go to the heart of the case to be presented or they may relate to matters required to be addressed in order to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn. If an issue to be raised with a witness is likely to be a sensitive one in the sense I have suggested then, obviously, forethought as to how it is to be approached is required. Your concern will be for the impact of the questions upon the witness and also for their impact upon the tribunal. The causing of distress to a witness is likely to have an impact not just upon the witness but also upon all who hear and observe the responses. Judges are human and, even though they may understand the need for a sensitive issue to be raised and may expect that to occur, the causing of distress, and especially unnecessary distress, to the witness is likely to have an adverse effect. It may create an atmosphere of sympathy around the witness. If poorly executed, it may cause the tribunal to query the motives of counsel or of the client. The presence of a jury will make the position even more difficult. Your approach to such matters will depend upon the nature of the particular issue, the nature of the case being heard, the nature of the tribunal and whether you are raising the issue in evidence in chief or in cross-examination. If the evidence is to come from a witness called by you, then the witness should be forewarned that it will be necessary to address the sensitive issue. The need to address the issue should be explained and the understanding of the witness as to that need should be obtained. The witness should be given some idea of how you propose to address the issue in the course of evidence. The witness can then prepare for the raising of the issue and can have time to consider the manner in which he or she wishes to deal with it. The situation is more difficult when the sensitive issue is to be raised for the first time in cross-examination. The witness may or may not be prepared for what is about to come. In those circumstances your approach will depend upon the nature of the witness and the nature of the material to be explored, considered in the context of the case. Hard decisions will have to be made as to how you proceed. Is it necessary to brutally confront the witness with a direct allegation or is it sufficient you simply raise the issues with the witness for comment and then move on? If other witnesses are to give evidence on the issue then you may not need to dwell on it with the witness most directly affected. If you need to obtain admissions from such a witness then you may have to be more insistent and direct.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
139
As a general proposition you may think in many cases it is preferable to adopt a “softly, softly” approach. You may wish to forewarn the witness you are about to venture into matters he or she may find upsetting. You may wish to explain to the witness it is not your intention to cause distress or embarrassment but it is necessary for the proper presentation of the case to raise the matters. The observations you make in this regard will, of course, be intended to provide some comfort and understanding to the witness but, in addition, will forewarn the tribunal of what is to come and why the raising of such an issue is unavoidable. If you adopt this approach you should remain courteous and, where appropriate, sympathetic throughout. You should allow the witness ample time to deal with the matters you raise and you should avoid the temptation to interrupt unless absolutely necessary. The tone of your questions and the language you use should be appropriate to the circumstances. However you should bear in mind the need to use clear language and you should avoid the use of euphemisms so there can be no later suggestion the responses of the witness were ambiguous or otherwise unclear. In some cases it will be more appropriate to bluntly confront the issue. If your intention is to catch the witness off guard or to undermine the image the witness has been seeking to create, a series of short, sharp and direct questions may be preferable. Courtesy need not be abandoned but the questions should be firm and to the point. Venturing into such fields is both dangerous and unpleasant. However if the evidence is material to the case of your client you must do your duty. How you perform that duty should be the subject of careful and sensitive preparation.
140
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Communication “To express the most difficult matters clearly and intelligently is to strike coins out of pure gold.” Geibel
Advocacy is the art of persuasion. In order to persuade it is necessary to communicate with your audience. The members of the audience with whom you wish to communicate will include not only the judge but also any juror or witness who may be present. Effective communication comes down to the language you use. You must tailor your language to suit the audience and you must constantly be aware that the words used by you and any witness you may call, need to be understood by everyone involved in the proceedings. If, in the course of proceedings, you stray into language unfamiliar to your audience or any member of it, you may be fortunate and find the person directly concerned will ask you to clarify your meaning. That will permit others in the court to benefit from the explanation you provide. However, more often than not, where a witness is involved, the witness will wish to hide from a display of ignorance by guessing at what is meant by your question. The danger is obvious. Others in the room (excluding the judge) will not have the opportunity to seek clarification. It is especially dangerous to use other than plain language if you are addressing a jury. The members of the jury do not have the opportunity to point out the words you are using are not familiar to them or that they have no idea what it is you are trying to convey. A powerful argument may disappear in a fog of verbal confusion. The effective advocate will use words that can be understood by all. Except when addressing a court constituted by a judge alone or a specialist tribunal it is prudent to use plain and simple language at all times. It is easier to ask “where do you live?” than to risk misunderstanding by enquiring “what is your residential address?” It is also easier to refer to cars rather than motor vehicles, jobs rather than employment and beer or wine or spirits rather than intoxicating liquor. The list of examples is endless. A similar problem of misunderstanding or lack of understanding can arise when the witness you have in the witness box uses language likely to be unfamiliar to his or her audience. This may occur where you are dealing with an expert or simply a person who has a wider vocabulary than most. Medical practitioners are commonly witnesses in all kinds of proceedings. Their vocabulary, as with their writing, can sometimes be hard to understand. Not
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
141
unnaturally they use the language or jargon of their profession. They will say that a patient was haemorrhaging rather than bleeding, or that he suffered a contusion rather than a bruise, and so on. Many of the expressions used may be very familiar to you but not so to others in the court. Similar observations apply to witnesses from other professions and special interest groups. You should encourage the witness to use terms that can be understood by all and, where the witness fails to do so, it is necessary for you to paraphrase the answer in terms readily understood. This will particularly be so where your witness is prone to using acronyms and professional jargon. It is your obligation to ensure what is said by the witness, as with everything said by you, is understood by all present in court. In a similar vein it is necessary for you to ensure you don’t slip into the habit of using legal terminology, shorthand or acronyms. You may know that “the Code” refers to the Criminal Code and what familiar expressions such as “adjourned generally”, “stood down”, “embarrassed”, “interrogatories”, “discovery” and so on mean in their legal context. You will be familiar with the acronyms CSJ, DUI, DEU and so on; others may not. In an article entitled The Ten Commandments of Evidence in Chief1 Peter Berman SC gave the following example of the use of inappropriate language in actual proceedings: Q: Do you expect your relationship to survive the trauma of your present separation? A:
Um?
Q:
Do you intend to live with him after he gets out of gaol?
A:
Yeah.
It is not just the terminology that may create problems. People in court may also have difficulty with concepts thoroughly familiar to you and your expert witness. Part of the art of communication is ensuring the listener is able to keep up with, and follow the thought processes behind, the language. One eye needs to be kept on the witness and the other on the listener or listeners
1.
Available on http://www.publicdefenders.nsw.gov.au/Pages/public_defenders_research/Papers%20by%20 Public%20Defenders/public_defenders_evidence_in_chief_ten_commandments.aspx
142
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Nervousness “A degree of nervousness or performance anxiety is natural.” Professor George Hampel AM QC
The impact of nervousness or performance anxiety on an advocate is not a topic I have seen addressed in the textbooks on advocacy. That is surprising because it is a condition that affects the great majority of us at some stage of our careers and often at many stages of our careers. It may be suffered when you are starting out and you appear before the Registrar of the Small Claims Court for a mention for the first time. It may occur when you undertake your first serious trial in the Local Court or when you conduct your first jury trial or when you appear for the first time before the Court of Appeal. In my experience, it attacks on every occasion that you appear before the High Court. Some degree of nervousness, or at least heightened awareness, is probably a good sign when you are appearing in a matter of importance. If you are totally relaxed it may be that you do not have a full appreciation of the importance of the occasion. A feeling of nervousness or apprehension may mean you are more alive to all that is going on and you are able to recognise and deal with problems others may not see. However a concern arises where you are so affected by an attack of nerves that you do not properly present your case. For example if, through nervousness, you suffer a mental block or you are so anxious to resume your seat you fail to deal with an issue. Nervousness may impact in many ways. There is no magic cure for nervousness although there are ways in which you can address it to ensure it does not have a negative impact upon your presentation of your client’s case or the outcome for your client. The more comfortable you are with your surroundings the less likely it is you will feel an overwhelming sense of nervousness. If you consider yourself prone to nervousness then you may wish to attend the venue at which you are to appear well in advance of the appearance in order to familiarise yourself with the layout. Whilst you are there you may be assisted by taking time to watch others prepare and present their cases to ensure you are familiar with the way in which matters are handled in that court or tribunal. The greater the familiarity you have with your environment the less likely you are to be affected by nerves. You may find it comforting to know that many, and probably the great majority, of your colleagues including those senior to you suffer and have suffered the same feelings as you are suffering. A recognition that this is not an uncommon experience but rather is closer to the norm will allow you to become accepting of how you feel.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
143
Along with the need to be familiar with your surroundings is, at least for some, a need to ensure you look the part. If you are self-conscious because of your failure to wear appropriate clothes or if you fail to ensure your appearance is up to scratch then you will have one further matter occupying your mind. You should ensure you are dressed appropriately for the occasion. Of course the greatest comfort you can achieve is to ensure you are adequately prepared both in fact and in law for the appearance you are about to undertake. If you have conducted a thorough preparation of the case and you have the facts and the law at your fingertips then, after a very short time, you will find your initial feelings of nervousness disappear as you concentrate on the presentation of the case. On the other hand, if you feel your preparation has been lacking and you may be confronted with problems to which you do not know the answer, then that will be playing upon your mind as your present your argument. Part of your preparation should involve ensuring when you attend court you have with you all of the materials upon which you intend to rely. Those materials should be organised in a way that permits you to lay your hands on appropriate items at a moment’s notice and with a minimum of fuss. If you are prone to nervousness, as a part of your preparation you may want to keep notes of the facts, the law and the issues likely to arise and how you propose to address them. Those notes should be as detailed as your circumstances demand. Once prepared, the notes should be put to one side and not used unless and until you suffer a mental blank or feel you need a prompt of some kind. The notes can act as a kind of security blanket for you as you present your case. You may not need them, indeed you are unlikely to need them, but you know they are there in the event that problems arise. If a problem does arise, you may refer to your notes to refresh your memory. You should resist the temptation to read at length from the notes. In the event of nervousness occurring, it may help to concentrate on slowing down your presentation and following with care the case strategy you have developed before entering the court. In this way you are less likely to be thrown off your stride by a question from the Bench or an unexpected development of any kind. Once you get into the argument you will find your attention becomes focused and thoughts of nervousness disappear as the whole of your attention is subsumed by the proceedings.
144
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Objective Counsel “The trouble with lawyers is they convince themselves that their clients are right.” Charles W Ainey
We are familiar with the proverb he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. The logic behind that observation also applies to the advocate who fails to maintain a professional distance between him or herself and the client. The extent to which a client is dependent upon the advocate is obvious. Any appearance in Court is likely to be important for a client. The more serious the issue to be resolved at that hearing the greater is the significance of the occasion to the client and the greater is the demand upon counsel. When you appear you do so with a view to achieving the best outcome available for the client. The best outcome may be something less than the client would wish for and often expect when you commence to take instructions. Counsel must be in a position to provide clear and firm advice as to what is and is not achievable. In a lot of cases it will be difficult not to feel sympathy for your client. In many cases such feelings are to be expected. In most of those cases there is no reason why you should not express your feelings of sympathy to the client. Similarly, it is often easy to accept in its entirety the version of events provided to you by the client. However you would only do so after a critical appraisal of the evidence of the client and an assessment of all of the objective evidence surrounding the matter. Notwithstanding your feelings of compassion for your client, in order to fulfil the obligations and responsibilities undertaken when you appear for someone as counsel, it is necessary for you to maintain an emotional distance from the client and the circumstances in which the client finds himself or herself. You must do so to enable you to make informed and balanced decisions and to provide objective advice. If you allow yourself to become too emotionally involved in the cause of your client, too enmeshed in the client’s troubles, too caught up in the sense of grievance the client is experiencing, the danger will be that you are no longer able to provide objective counsel to your client. In the course of a trial and in the preparation leading up to a trial, the advocate must make many difficult and important decisions. To allow an emotional involvement in the matter to develop is likely to result in your
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
145
judgment becoming clouded or affected in a way that is not in the ultimate interests of the client. You may be less able to identify points sought to be made, or arguments put, that are in satisfaction of some emotional need but which, when the interests of the client are objectively assessed, should not be raised at all. You may be less likely to identify inconsistencies in the case you are instructed to present. It may not be as clear to you that settlement on terms less than a full victory to your client is desirable. In relation to the presentation of the case and to the desirability of settlement your client is entitled to receive objective and practical advice. Sometimes that advice will not be welcome and will need to be put firmly and even forcefully. An effective presentation, or a settlement in the best interests of the client, often includes concessions the client is reluctant to make. They may involve abandoning arguments the client wishes to air. Settlement will mean the client does not have that desired “day in court”. Counsel needs to be sufficiently removed from the emotional aspects of the matter to permit the provision of appropriate advice to the client at a time when the emotional stress on the client is at its greatest. Joseph A. Ball, a former president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, is reported to have said: The more I become involved emotionally in my client’s cause the less I am able to (do) for him. In my view that is generally so. What I have said above does not mean you should not feel compassion for your client. It does not mean you should not, after proper assessment, accept fully the version of events provided by your client and the witnesses. It does not prevent you from conveying those impressions to the tribunal in an appropriate way. I do not suggest you should go so far as Marshall Hall who is reputed to have, on occasions, allowed tears to stream down his cheeks whilst addressing a jury. However, sometimes such emotions cannot be avoided. I clearly recall two cases of my own where tears have welled in my eyes whilst I have led plaintiffs through their evidence in chief. However the sadness or injustice of the circumstances of your client and the impact those matters have upon you as an advocate must be kept in proper check. Your most important function is to provide your client with an objective, unemotional and professional source of advice throughout the trial.
146
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
Observing the Customs “As laws are necessary that good manners may be preserved, so good manners are necessary that laws may be maintained.” Machiavelli
I have always been intrigued by counsel announcing his or her appearance to the court by saying: “If it please the court my name is Smith and I appear for the plaintiff.” It seems to me that counsel’s name will be Smith whether it please the court or not. Counsel would be better to re-order the statement as follows: “My name is Smith. May it please the court I appear on behalf of the plaintiff.” There are innumerable conventions, rules of conduct and rules of etiquette that govern the conduct of counsel when appearing before courts in the Northern Territory. It is not possible to visit all of those rules and conventions in an article such as this but I would like to mention a few that are commonly breached.
Moments of Silence There are times in the course of a trial when it is necessary for counsel and all others present in court to remain silent and still. There should always be silence when a witness takes the oath or affirmation at the commencement of his or her evidence. The same applies whenever an oath or affirmation is taken in the course of a hearing, for example by members of the jury and by the jury guards. Likewise the court should be silent and still on such solemn occasions as when a verdict is delivered by a jury or a judgment is given by a judge. The same will apply when a judge is summing up to a jury or when a judge imposes sentence.
Citing Authority In referring to authorities you should always endeavour to refer to the authorised reports. If the matter is reported in the Commonwealth Law Reports then that is the report to which you refer. You should avoid the temptation to cite every authority on the point you wish to address. Wherever possible you should limit yourself to the leading authority and only refer to others if there is some compelling reason to do so. When citing authority to a court the written citation Jones v Smith becomes Jones and Smith or Jones against Smith; it is not Jones versus Smith.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
147
When identifying a case by reference to any of the law reports it is not appropriate to refer to the report by an abbreviation such as 149 CLR 51 or 140 FLR 62. Rather the reference should be to (1981-1982) 149 Commonwealth Law Reports at 51 and (1997) 140 Federal Law Reports at 62. When referring to judges, although the print records Martin CJ or Mildren J, your reference should be to “the Chief Justice” or to “Justice Mildren”. If the reference be to a former Chief Justice then you should identify that person by name e.g. Chief Justice Asche.
Addressing the Bench As is well known judges are referred to as “Your Honour”. Other judicial officers should be referred to by their title, e.g. Master, Registrar or Acting Registrar. As a matter of common courtesy you should never talk over a judicial officer. If you have a desperate need to interrupt the judicial officer then you should await a convenient interval in what is being said before doing so. When you do address a judicial officer you should always rise to your feet prior to doing so. If your opponent rises to his or her feet whilst you are addressing the court then you should immediately sit down. There should not be two counsel on their feet addressing the court, or seeking to address the court, at the same time. This latter is not only a rule of courtesy but one which ensures a structured debate and avoids the deterioration of the presentation of the argument into one counsel over-talking another with both striving to be heard.
Your Learned Friend No matter how strained relations may be you should refer to your opponent as “my friend” or “my learned friend”. The use of the term “learned” indicates no more than your opponent is qualified to appear as a legal practitioner. It is no greater endorsement of the qualities of your opponent than that. Whatever the provocation you should avoid bickering with your opponent; when egos clash in that way the judge or the jury assumes the role of a frustrated bystander. Such conduct is unseemly and does not advance the case of your client. If your opponent is interrupting you or sniping at you in a way which is distracting you from your task then you may wish to do one or more of the following: 1. quietly and privately invite your opponent to refrain from distracting you; 2. in a louder and more public way invite your opponent to refrain from distracting you; 3. if the conduct amounts to what cricketers term “sledging” and
148
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
continues on you may wish to indicate to the court that it appears your opponent has something to say and sit down to give him or her the opportunity to address the court; 4. if the conduct persists invite the court to intervene to ensure you are able to present your case free from interruption. You will find that if misconduct of this kind by your opponent is distracting you it will also be distracting the Bench and the jury. The Bench will not need much persuasion before it interferes.
Submissions It is important to remember that you appear as the representative of your client and you are there to put submissions on behalf of your client. The court is not concerned with your personal views and, indeed, should not be made aware of those views. The case is not about you. It follows that when you address the court you should not be using expressions such as “I think” or “I believe”. Your role is to make submissions on behalf of your client and you do this by using expressions such as “I submit” or “I contend” or “our case is”.
The Bar Table Often you will appear before a court when a series of matters is being dealt with. This regularly occurs in the Local Courts and also in the Supreme Court when interlocutory matters are being dealt with or arraignments conducted. When you are at the bar table and come to the completion of your matter you should not leave the bar table unless other counsel is taking your place. If yours is the last matter in the list or if other counsel are not assuming positions at the bar table you should remain in place. If it is necessary for you to leave then you should seek the permission of the court to do so. In the absence of permission it is a discourtesy to the Bench to leave the court facing an empty bar table. This is a grab bag of random and incomplete observations regarding this topic. You should refer to any of the many texts on advocacy to find out more regarding matters of etiquette and appropriate conduct in court.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
149
Developing the Skills “… in spite of all the Bar examinations and better law schools, we are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians.” Warren E Burger
In order to enhance your effectiveness as an advocate there are many skills you can endeavour to develop and there are many and varied ways you may do so. A visit to the library will reveal numerous texts and articles devoted to the subject of advocacy and a reading of these will repay the effort. In this way you will be able to identify issues, and strategies for dealing with those issues, that may assist you in your day-to-day practice. There is also much to be gained from attending court as often as possible and watching others perform. It is not enough to simply observe but rather it is necessary to critically appraise the tactics and techniques adopted by counsel. Consider not only the successes but also the failures that occur within the work of the advocate. Take time to consider what was effective and what was not. You can learn what to avoid by observing a disastrous cross-examination in the same way you can identify and adopt successful techniques from a good cross-examination. The reality is that on any random visit to the courts you are likely to see more examples of mediocre and poor cross-examination than you will of brilliant cross-examination. In my opinion the most effective method of improving advocacy skills is to actually perform the tasks yourself. The most desirable forum in which to do that is in a workshop where you are provided with the opportunity to develop your skills in circumstances that are as close to “the real thing” as is possible. The advantages of performing in a workshop situation are obvious. You are not putting at risk the interests of a client. You have the benefit of input from independent and experienced observers. You can take time immediately after your performance to analyse for yourself what worked and what did not work and how best you can perform the task on the next occasion. You can learn from observing the efforts of others in dealing with the same issues and by listening to the discussion and debate surrounding those efforts. You have the opportunity to go back and do it again. I strongly recommend you seize every opportunity to participate in advocacy workshops. This observation applies to both new and experienced advocates
150
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
and, in particular, to those advocates who think they have nothing left to learn in the field of advocacy. Your learning processes should not be restricted to the reading of materials, the watching of others and participating in workshops. Every time you appear as an advocate you should take time at the end of the day to subject your performance to critical appraisal of the kind you might apply to others. Of course it is at that time too late to go back and do it again but you can learn from your mistakes and successes and determine how to avoid repeating the mistakes in the future. In this way you will avoid becoming one of those ever-present experienced advocates who make the same errors of presentation and judgment over and over. There are other things you can do in order to enhance your effectiveness as an advocate. Developing an understanding of human nature will be of great benefit to you. Clearly the more you know about people and how they react to different situations, and how they respond to different approaches made to them, the greater are your prospects for dealing effectively with individuals in the witness box. Knowledge of human nature comes with experience but it also comes more quickly if one subjects the surrounding world to keen observation. Developing an understanding of your own strengths and weaknesses is also to be encouraged. If you are aware of your strengths and conscious of your weaknesses you can utilise the strengths and avoid the pitfalls that accompany or flow from your weaknesses. For example, if you are regarded by others as being an impatient person (incorrectly of course!) you may wish to bear that in mind whilst you are carefully probing for information from a witness. If you are quick to make assumptions you should consciously resist that temptation and so on. As you gain experience as an advocate you will also develop your own style. It is a mistake to look to other advocates and seek to copy them. What works for one person may not work for another. You may adopt tactics you see successfully used and you may employ approaches to problems you have witnessed others employ but, ultimately, you will need to fit those tactics and approaches into your own style. All advocates can improve their performances. An ongoing commitment to developing skills should be present in every advocate.
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
151
Bibliography
Coldrey, J, “Aboriginals and the Criminal Courts”, in Ivory Scales: Black Australia and The Law (K M Hazlehurst ed, 1987, New South Wales University Press) Eades, D, Aboriginal English and The Law (1992, Queensland Law Society Inc.) Frost-Knappman, E, Shrager, D S, The Quotable Lawyer, (rev ed, 1998, New England Publishing Associates Inc.) Glissan, J L, Tilmouth, S W, Advocacy In Practice (3rd ed, 1998, Butterworths) Glissan, J L, Tilmouth, S W, Australian Criminal Trial Directions (1996 - , Butterworths) (looseleaf) Heydon, J D, Cross On Evidence (1996 - , Butterworths) (looseleaf) Mauet, T A, McCrimmon, L A, Fundamentals of Trial Techniques (2nd Australian ed, 2001, LBC Information Services) McCrimmon, L A, “Challenging a Potential Juror for Cause: Resuscitation or Requiem?” (2000) 23(1) UNSWLJ 127 McHugh, M H, “Cross-Examination on Documents” (1985) 1 ABR 51 Menzies, R G, Afternoon Light; Some Memories of Men and Events (1967, Cassell Australia) Mildren, D, “Redressing the Imbalance Against Aboriginals in the Criminal Justice System” (1997) 21 CLJ 7 Phillips, J Advocacy with Honour (1985, The Law Book Company Limited) Stone, M, Proof of Fact in Criminal Trials (1984, W. Green & Son) Wells, W A N, Evidence and Advocacy (1988, Butterworths)
152
The Little Red Book of Advocacy – Second Edition
