Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) Advocacy Syllabus

Distinguish an 'unfavourable' witness from a 'hostile' witness.

An unfavourable witness simply fails to give the expected helpful evidence or forgets, but is still trying to tell the truth — the advocate cannot impeach them, only call other evidence. A hostile witness displays animus/no desire to assist the calling party, and may be cross-examined by leave.

What are the two main purposes of cross-examination?

(1) To elicit evidence favourable to the cross-examining party's case (constructive cross-examination); (2) to undermine or test the credibility and reliability of the witness's evidence-in-chief (destructive cross-examination).

State 'the rule in Browne v Dunn' (the rule of putting your case).

An advocate must 'put' to a witness in cross-examination any matter on which they intend to contradict that witness or any allegation they will later make against them, so the witness has a fair opportunity to respond. Failure to put one's case may mean the contradicting evidence is given less weight or the point is treated as conceded.

What is the general rule on the form of questions in cross-examination compared to examination-in-chief?

In cross-examination leading questions ARE permitted and are the standard form, allowing the advocate to control the witness and put propositions. In examination-in-chief leading questions on disputed matters are not permitted.

What is meant by 'closed' or 'controlled' questioning in cross-examination?

Short, leading, single-fact propositions that invite only a 'yes' or 'no' answer, giving the advocate control and minimising the witness's opportunity to explain or repeat damaging evidence.

Define 're-examination' and state its scope.

Re-examination is questioning of one's own witness by the advocate who called them, AFTER cross-examination. Its scope is limited to matters arising out of cross-examination — to clarify, explain, or repair points raised in cross-examination. No new matters may be introduced without the leave of the court, and leading questions are not permitted.

Can new topics be raised in re-examination?

No. Re-examination is confined to matters that arose in cross-examination. To introduce a genuinely new matter the advocate must seek the leave of the court.

What is the typical sequence of questioning a single witness in an English trial?

Examination-in-chief (by the calling party) → cross-examination (by the opposing party/parties) → re-examination (by the calling party, limited to matters arising in cross-examination). The judge may also ask questions, after which counsel may seek leave to ask further questions arising from the judge's questions.

Distinguish a 'submission' from 'evidence' in advocacy.

Evidence is the factual material (testimony, documents, exhibits) on which the court makes findings of fact. A submission is the advocate's argument — applying the law to the facts/evidence — inviting the court to reach a particular conclusion. An advocate gives submissions, not evidence.

What is a 'submission of no case to answer' in a criminal trial, and what test applies?

A defence submission, made at the close of the prosecution case, that there is insufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to convict. The test (R v Galbraith) is: (1) if there is no evidence the crime was committed by the defendant, stop the case; (2) if there is some evidence but it is so tenuous/weak that no jury properly directed could convict, stop the case; otherwise leave it to the jury.

State the two limbs of the test in R v Galbraith for a no case to answer submission.

Limb 1: there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime. Limb 2: there is some evidence but, taken at its highest, it is so tenuous, weak, or inconsistent that no jury properly directed could properly convict on it. If either limb is satisfied the judge withdraws the case.

What is the structure of a persuasive legal submission, sometimes taught as a four-part formula?

A common structure is: (1) state the proposition/conclusion you seek; (2) state the legal rule/authority; (3) apply the rule to the facts/evidence; (4) restate the conclusion. This mirrors IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) and signposts the court clearly.

In what order should an advocate generally present points in a submission for maximum persuasion?

Lead with your strongest point, deal with weaker points in the middle, and end on a strong note (primacy and recency). Confront, rather than ignore, the key adverse point, but do not give it undue prominence.

What is an 'interim application' (interlocutory application) in civil proceedings?

An application made between the issue of proceedings and trial seeking a procedural order or interim remedy — e.g. summary judgment, an interim injunction, security for costs, strike out, specific disclosure, or relief from sanctions. It is determined on submissions and (usually) written evidence rather than live oral evidence.

What is the structure of an effective interim application advocacy at a hearing?

Typically: (1) introduction (who you are, what the application is, the order sought); (2) the relevant background/facts from the evidence; (3) the legal test/rule governing the application; (4) application of the test to the facts; (5) deal with the respondent's points; (6) clear statement of the order and any consequential matters (costs, directions).

What is the general structure of an opening speech for the prosecution/claimant?

Introduce the parties and the nature of the case; outline the issues and what must be proved (the legal framework and burden/standard); give a concise, neutral-but-persuasive narrative of the facts the evidence will establish; explain how the evidence will be called; avoid argument and overstating the evidence.

What are the key features of an effective closing speech?

It is argument (unlike the opening): marshal the evidence actually given, apply it to the legal issues and burden/standard of proof, advance your theory and theme, confront and neutralise adverse evidence, and end with a clear, confident invitation to the tribunal to find in your favour.

Contrast the opening speech with the closing speech in terms of permitted content.

The opening previews the evidence and outlines the case neutrally and without argument (you cannot argue evidence not yet given). The closing is fully argumentative: it interprets the evidence that has been heard, draws inferences, and persuades the tribunal to a conclusion.

In a Crown Court trial, who makes the closing speeches and in what order?

Prosecution closes first, then the defence closes last (the defence has the 'last word' to the jury before the judge's summing-up). The defence's right to address the jury last is an important feature of the adversarial trial.

List the classic principles of persuasive oral communication for an advocate.

Clarity and simplicity of language; sound structure and signposting; appropriate pace and pauses; eye contact with the tribunal; control of voice (projection, tone, emphasis); economy (brevity); credibility and sincerity; and reading/responding to the tribunal. Persuasion combines logic (logos), credibility (ethos), and measured appeal (pathos).

What is meant by 'signposting' in advocacy, and why is it persuasive?

Signposting is telling the tribunal in advance the structure of what you are about to say ('I make three submissions; first... second... third...'). It aids comprehension, helps the judge take a note, and keeps the argument organised and easy to follow, increasing persuasiveness.

Explain the rhetorical triad of ethos, logos, and pathos as applied to advocacy.

Ethos = persuasion through the advocate's credibility, honesty, and authority. Logos = persuasion through logical, evidence-based reasoning. Pathos = persuasion through legitimate appeal to the tribunal's sense of justice/emotion. Effective advocacy, especially before a jury, blends all three, with logos dominant before a judge.

What is the proper way to take a valid objection to a question in court?

Rise (the questioning advocate should pause/sit), address the judge not opposing counsel, state the objection concisely with its legal ground (e.g. 'My Lord, that is a leading question' / 'that calls for hearsay' / 'that is not relevant'), and wait for the judge's ruling before proceeding.

Give three common grounds on which an advocate may object to a question.

Examples: the question is leading (in chief on a disputed matter); it calls for inadmissible hearsay; it is irrelevant; it is a compound or ambiguous question; it assumes a fact not in evidence; it calls for opinion from a non-expert; it is oppressive/badgering; or it relates to inadmissible bad character/privileged material.

How should an advocate respond when the tribunal (judge) asks a question or raises a concern during submissions?

Stop, listen, and answer the question directly and immediately, even if it disrupts your prepared structure. Address the judge's real concern, concede points that should be conceded, then return to your structure. Never ignore, dodge, or talk over a judge's intervention.

What is the advocate's obligation regarding adverse authorities and adverse procedural points?

As part of the duty to the court, an advocate must draw the court's attention to relevant decisions, legislative provisions, and procedural irregularities of which they are aware that are adverse to their own client's case, even if the opponent has overlooked them. The advocate must not mislead the court by omission.

How should an advocate deploy documentary evidence in submissions?

Give the tribunal the precise reference (bundle, tab, page, paragraph/line), allow time to find it, read or summarise the key passage, then make the submission drawing the inference from it. Anchor every factual assertion to a specific piece of evidence on the record.

What is the 'golden rule' about asserting facts in a submission or closing speech?

Every factual assertion must be grounded in evidence actually before the court. An advocate must not give evidence from the bar table (assert facts not in evidence) and must not invite the tribunal to act on material that was never adduced or has been ruled inadmissible.

What is the distinction between the 'legal burden' and the 'evidential burden' that an advocate must keep in mind when framing submissions?

The legal (persuasive) burden is the obligation to prove a fact in issue to the required standard (e.g. prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt). The evidential burden is the obligation merely to adduce sufficient evidence of an issue to make it a live question for the tribunal (e.g. raising self-defence), after which the legal burden may rest on the other party to disprove it.