Monday 28 February 2011

It's a legal matter. baby

I'm involved in in a Moot. It's part of the degree, and I have to make decent fist of it in order to pass the Private Law class. But it's ungraded - just a pass, or fail. When I mentioned it before, it seemed to be a reasonable way off. That way off is now looking horribly short. Just two full days, in fact. Thursday morning, to be precise. Not that I, and my junior, haven't done a good deal of research on the matter. But it's such a step into the unknown. It's not an essay; nor is it a presentation; it's an oral argument. It has to be flexible, and dynamic, and respond to the points made by the reclaimers, and deal with questions from the judge. So, this morning, as required, I submitted our list of authorities:
Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All E.R. 328 
Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420
Gilfillan v Barbour 2003 SLT 1127
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
They don't seem to be at too great a variance from the Reclaimer's (appellant to Englishers) authorities:
Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
Police (Scotland) Act 1967
Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC (HL) 3
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
There weren't any surprises in there, fortunately, so they haven't found anything obscure, but devastating, that we'd missed. Although I am intrigued as to what they've found of use in the Police (S) Act that that that they can't get from Gibson. Seems like a waste of of a slot to me, as we're only allowed a scant five authorities each. And Muir looks to be a slightly odd choice, as it's mainly about negligence, foreseeability, and owner's liability, which doesn't quite seem in point here.

So, all we have to do now is try to make a decent case from the facts & authorities, work out, and respond to, what the Reclaimer's case is likely to be, and present it well, standing on our hind legs, while being harried by a cantankerous judge. The whole hearing is scheduled to take about one hour. The only bright spot is that only counsel and the judge will be present - no audience is allowed.

I think I'll be getting properly suited & booted (but no gowns, or wigs) to argue the case. Looking the part might help, and assist in achieving the correct level of expected formality, especially in addressing his Lordship; as might being the oldest in the court by about 20 years! And my junior is a 4th year Czech Law student, on an Erasmus exchange, while the Reclaimers are but 18 year old first years. We ought to win, really...

No comments:

Post a Comment