LexisNexis is a leading global provider of legal, regulatory and business information, and AI-driven analytics that help professional customers make more informed decisions, increase productivity and serve their clients better. Here you'll see videos about legal technology, practice tips for lawyers, interviews with experts, product demos and more!
📌See the Consumer law module we've got lined up this 2023! Don't forget that you can sign up for our fortnightly Practice Area Round-Ups to receive all the latest updates. Check the link in the description box ⬆
Most lawyers have never testified. So they only vicariously get a glimpse at the dynamics. Even as role players in mock trials IF they did mock testimony, only gives a small glimpse of the dynamic So, it takes them an appreciable time to understand testimony by professional witnesses eg. experts and law enforcement officers who testify regularly.
Thank you for sharing masterful insights. I watched this video a few times and realised I have the 6th edition of Advocacy in Practice, written by J L Glissan, sitting next to me. It is a lovely book(especially the sweet dedication Glissan QC gives to his wife.) Thank you for reprinting the 'comic piece' within the preface. On reading it, I had good hearty laugh, which was sorely needed, as in the present, I can relate to being a 'Family Court ... consumer' (and in being one of those 'more difficult tasks' than not, for the advocates.) Kind regards, Eleonora. Around 0:24 min to 0:33 min 'Completely and utterly thoroughly prepared'? ..... Really? .... should not be a laughing matter ... right now, it is ... lol ... oh dear ...
Here is the crux of the barrister's dilema. A witness who tells the truth can be dangerous therefore they have to be undermined by clever questions and esoteric argument. Defending your case by obfuscating the truth is very thin moral ice.
You say that. But such cross-examination can be perfectly justified. A completely honest witness can nevertheless be mistaken, classically in an identification case where it is perfectly proper to cross-examine about the circumstances of the purported identification. The honest witness may very well be wrong despite being convinced he is right - and the barrister has to attempt to demonstrate that.
