I like these cross examination tips so I can defend myself when the wife cross examines me Yep good vid had to get my head aroud some of this but now I understand.
Defendant has denied his presence at the place of incident “X” on the date when the offence committed. Defendant has also said that he does NOT know the place and never visited there. Can I ask : Do you know the place “X”? Did you visit there ever? As it is yes/No answer can it be asked? Will these types of questions be regarded as leading questions? Thank You.
That you so much for doing this video, I can’t begin to tell you how much it’s helped me. If you’re able to could you help me with some questions about this subject? Is evidence in chief used in private family proceedings? I’m a litigant in person (I have no access to money, premarital house which he has home rights over and won’t allow me to take a loan against or sell it…, so no legal help for me!) but my ex husband has highly lauded, award winning barristers representing him throughout, and the judge will be asking him the questions I’ve put forward, but I’m nervous about the questions aspect of the fof hearing. Will his barristers be starting with evidence in chief with him (it’s his case, his wild allegations and his ongoing reduction in quality and duration of contact between our child and I), before the judge asks him my questions? Will I have a similar opportunity to have the judge ask evidence in chief questions of me and do I have to prepare these questions for the judge in advance? After my questions to my ex have been asked by the judge on my behalf, will my ex will have the luxury of his barrister asking follow up questions, to I don’t know, seek clarification on some of my questions to soften the blow, or to just improve the judges understanding of the situation, will I be granted the same opportunity to have additional questions asked of me after cross examination by his team? Sorry there’s so many questions, any help is greatly appreciated.
Whats the best way to get into law? Should i do a law degree or a different degree followed by a conversion course, i have seen lots of conflicting things and it would be great to know! Thanks.
In examination in chief, what is the best way to adduce evidence of a witness hearing a sound without being leading as to a sound being heard at all? Thanks, excellent channel btw!
"Witness, how close were you to the incident?" "So in that distance proximity, were you able to see and hear anything?" "Did you hear a sound from where you were?" "Was it a loud or low sounding noise caused?" ...And so on
"Was your memory of events better when you made your statement than it is now?" "Yes, it was." "Might the witness be allowed to refresh her memory from her statement?" "Yes of course, it's not a memory test. Could the witness be handed a copy of her statement?" Me the usher thinks: "Sh!t, she was in such a state when I went to get her I forgot all about her statement and it's still in the witness room three floors away." (Whispered) "Your Honour, mea culpa and three bags full etc etc..."
Can't the Defence be difficult and not accept that there is some things not in dispute? . That would be strategy where a witness is just not very good on the stand
Some witness are just that good. Example, an expert witness with years of experience or qualifications, or even a layman with some degree of experience and technical knowledge. For a Defence counsel to be difficult as you suggest, is just wasting the Court's time. Respectfully, if a witness is not good, you have to show by their statements and if there are any previous inconsistencies made. You could also show they have a history of being unreliable or question their experience. Normally, when Defence counsel accepts that there are some things not in dispute it is because these things are generally known by all parties before the trial proceedings are underway. So you don't waste time and focus on the issues only.
Great! Appreciate your efforts and time. Waiting for your Civil Advocacy, Cross examination and Conferencing video.
Thank you very much for this insightful knowledge sharing session
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you so much for sharing some of your wisdom Sir !!
Very clear explanations that are simple to understand and apply
I like these cross examination tips so I can defend myself when the wife cross examines me Yep good vid had to get my head aroud some of this but now I understand.
You just gave me ideas for a few "fun" videos 😀
The video is really very helpful, many thanks.
Thank you for the video.
Best wishes
Thank you! You too!
Could you please do some videos where you demonstrate the process itself!
Very interesting re leading questions. it's a skill
Thanks very much counsel
0:23, "ask you questions?", who is "you" supposed to be?
The defendant is the “you” for defence barrister. The “you” for the prosecution witness will be asked by prosecutor.
What about doing a vid on the green belt and the brown belt the you can say black belt takes on a green belt. Another good vid
Very informative 💎💎
Defendant has denied his presence at the place of incident “X” on the date when the offence committed. Defendant has also said that he does NOT know the place and never visited there. Can I ask :
Do you know the place “X”?
Did you visit there ever?
As it is yes/No answer can it be asked?
Will these types of questions be regarded as leading questions?
Thank You.
These questions are fine as you are not suggesting the answer
That you so much for doing this video, I can’t begin to tell you how much it’s helped me.
If you’re able to could you help me with some questions about this subject?
Is evidence in chief used in private family proceedings?
I’m a litigant in person (I have no access to money, premarital house which he has home rights over and won’t allow me to take a loan against or sell it…, so no legal help for me!) but my ex husband has highly lauded, award winning barristers representing him throughout, and the judge will be asking him the questions I’ve put forward, but I’m nervous about the questions aspect of the fof hearing.
Will his barristers be starting with evidence in chief with him (it’s his case, his wild allegations and his ongoing reduction in quality and duration of contact between our child and I), before the judge asks him my questions?
Will I have a similar opportunity to have the judge ask evidence in chief questions of me and do I have to prepare these questions for the judge in advance?
After my questions to my ex have been asked by the judge on my behalf, will my ex will have the luxury of his barrister asking follow up questions, to I don’t know, seek clarification on some of my questions to soften the blow, or to just improve the judges understanding of the situation, will I be granted the same opportunity to have additional questions asked of me after cross examination by his team?
Sorry there’s so many questions, any help is greatly appreciated.
Whats the best way to get into law?
Should i do a law degree or a different degree followed by a conversion course, i have seen lots of conflicting things and it would be great to know! Thanks.
It's really down to what you want to do - but the fastest way is, of course, a QLD then your chosen route.
In examination in chief, what is the best way to adduce evidence of a witness hearing a sound without being leading as to a sound being heard at all? Thanks, excellent channel btw!
"Witness, how close were you to the incident?"
"So in that distance proximity, were you able to see and hear anything?"
"Did you hear a sound from where you were?"
"Was it a loud or low sounding noise caused?"
...And so on
Great vid learnt something 🙂🙂
Thanks for watching!
"Was your memory of events better when you made your statement than it is now?" "Yes, it was." "Might the witness be allowed to refresh her memory from her statement?" "Yes of course, it's not a memory test. Could the witness be handed a copy of her statement?" Me the usher thinks: "Sh!t, she was in such a state when I went to get her I forgot all about her statement and it's still in the witness room three floors away." (Whispered) "Your Honour, mea culpa and three bags full etc etc..."
Can't the Defence be difficult and not accept that there is some things not in dispute? . That would be strategy where a witness is just not very good on the stand
Some witness are just that good. Example, an expert witness with years of experience or qualifications, or even a layman with some degree of experience and technical knowledge. For a Defence counsel to be difficult as you suggest, is just wasting the Court's time. Respectfully, if a witness is not good, you have to show by their statements and if there are any previous inconsistencies made. You could also show they have a history of being unreliable or question their experience. Normally, when Defence counsel accepts that there are some things not in dispute it is because these things are generally known by all parties before the trial proceedings are underway. So you don't waste time and focus on the issues only.
Who asks who