Moot Points

I had a rather exciting day in court last Wednesday. As part of the assessment in Evidence, one of the activities was a mock argument in court, effectively a mooting exercise. My partner and I, who played the role of Crown prosecutors, had to make submissions asking for certain evidence to be included and excluded. There was also a 1-person defence team comprised of the magnificent and near-invincible Kate Maloney (the nominal student head of the JD program) who stepped in at the last minute as we would otherwise have had no defence team against us.

I made my arguments first, submitting that the victim's criminal record and tattoos should be excluded. Then Kate made her counterarguments and then submitted that the accused's statements should be excluded. My partner, Roland, then made his submissions that the accused's statements should be admitted. All the while our professor-assessor, Molly, interjected with questions challenging our positions. At then end, she said she was very impressed with our performances, in particular that we had good presence and were able to effectively address the judge on a personal level. I remember her saying that there was no question that she could ask that would phase us, which I take as high praise indeed. I had also made a particular argument that admitting the victim's criminal record and tattoos would render the trial unfair for the accused which is a violation of their rights under the ACT Human Rights Act. S. 21 of that act states, paraphrasing it, that everyone has the right to a fair trial, the operative word being "everyone" not "every accused". I submitted that in this case "everyone" includes the victim. I had actually gotten the argument from my Criminal Justice class but it seemed appropriate. I was told it was a very good and creative argument and that if I'd been able to find some sort of supporting precedent, it would have been "killer". At all odds anyway, my partner and I left the moot in high spirits as it seems we did very well.

After 10 weeks of back-breaking labour we have entered the 2-week break. This will be the last 2-week break after 10 weeks as ANU is switching to a new system next year following mounds of unfavourable feedback from students and staff. I am taking this opportunity to visit friends in Melbourne from next Wednesday to the following Tuesday, so there won't be a post next Saturday. I haven't been out of Canberra for quite some time and I think I should take my leave for a little bit.

While in Melbourne I may get a chance to see Game 2 of the AFL Grand Final. They played Game 1 today and it ended in a tie. In AFL, for some ungodly reason, if the Grand Final ends in a tie, they play another full game the next week. I much prefer the ACTAFL's approach involving extra time. I was working at ACTTAB today and I watched the game when I could. The St. Kilda Saints were playing the Collingwood Magpies in front of 100 016 people at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. It was an exciting game with St. Kilda pulling out in front just minutes before the game ended but Collingwood managed to tie it up although they blew a few chances to put the game away. At full time the final score was 68-68 and it's only the 3rd time in history that this has happened. Each team is trying to win their first premiership in many years; Collingwood last won in 1990 and St. Kilda last won (its only win) in 1966. If there are any tickets available I'll definitely try to go down for the game. This doesn't happen very often and if I can I want to see the thrilling conclusion.

To end off, here's a joke for the lawyers. I'll post the answer the next time I blog. See if you can guess the answer.

Why was the dolphin allowed in adduce hearsay evidence against the credibility of a witness?