MOCK TRIAL
Home : http://abc.net.au/mocktrial/forum/forum.htm
Transcript Source : http://www2.abc.net.au/learn/mocktrialjun15/
From: MichaelBrogan Subject: Introductions/opening
addresses/solicitor's notes post
id: 2
Good Afternoon. My name is Michael Brogan I am a lecturer in the Faculty
of Law at the
From: Kambala Subject: Signing In post id: 3
Hi
everybody, We're here, but we've got massive problems
due to a disk error!
From: MichaelBrogan Subject: Opening
addresses post id: 6
Would both teams please upload their opening addresses. You have five minutes
to read these speeches.
From: Kambala re:
Introductions/opening addresses/solicitor's no post id: 7
The Kambala team comprises of Georgia Cable (1st Barrister),
Anna Raissis (2nd Barrister), Julia Ward (solicitor),
Chrissy Kanakis (Mrs Giant)
and Cazz Iyer (Inspector
Morse).
YOUR HONOUR,
If your
Honour pleases, my name is Annabelle Minter and I am appearing with my learned
friend, David Atkinson. We are instructed by James Alexander. The other members
of our team are Sophie Slonim and Lyndsay
Quarmby as witnesses and Ross Tasker
as Judges Associate. Georgina Bryant is our court clerk
From: MichaelBrogan Solicitor's Notes
post id: 9
Would both teams please e-mail their solicitor's notes to me at the following
e-mail address: learn@your.abc.net.au
From: Kambala Opening
addresses post id: 10
This
is a criminal matter where the prosecution will prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Mr. Jack Jones is guilty of the offences he is charged with.
Jack
Jones is charged with two offences, first and foremost, he is charged with
murder under Section 18 of the Crimes Act of 1900 in
1) the death of the deceased
2) an unlawful act of the accused which caused that death
3) such an act was done with:
a) intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or
b) reckless indifference to human life
Under Section 18 (1) A. murder shall be taken to have been committed where the
act of the accused...causing the death charged...was done with the reckless
indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily
harm upon some person.
Secondly,
Jack Jones is being charged under Section 112 (1) Crimes Act 1900
1) that the accused broke and entered a dwelling house
2) committed a felony therein.
Under
this charge, the prosecution will prove that the accused:
1) wrongfully took and carried away;
2) the personal goods of another;
3) with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of such property;
4) without his or her consent
Your honour, on the 31st of March 1997, Jack Jones entered the house of Mr and
Mrs Giant through a cat flap. He then hid inside the house. While Mr Giant was
sleeping, Jack Jones took the goose and the egg and ran from the premises. A
chase ensued. Upon reaching the bottom of the beanstalk, Jones obtained an axe
and cut down the beanstalk whilst Mr Giant was still climbing. This caused Mr
Giant to fall approximately 500 meteres. He
subsequently died of head injuries sustained in that fall.
Your
honour, the first witness for the prosecution is Mrs Martha Giant. She is the
wife of the deceased, they were married for 40 years.
She will testify that Jack Jones broke into her house through a cap flap and
that she told him to leave. She will also testify that she witnessed Jack Jones
stealing the goose and egg and fleeing from the premises. She will testify that
her husband then chased Jones down the beanstalk.
The
second witness for the prosecution is Insepctor
Albert Morse. He will testify that he was called to the scene of the crime and
that Jack Jones is often in trouble with the law. He will testify that when he
saw Jack Jones, Jack was holding the goose he stole from Mr and Mrs Giant. He
will testify that the axe used to cut down the beanstalk was on the kitchen
table at the Jones residence. He will also testify that Jones made a full
statement at the police station.
Your
honour, Jack Jones murdered Arthur Giant whilst fleeing from committing the
offence of break, enter and steal. Today the prosecution will prove both these
charges beyond all reasonable doubt.
From: scots Subject:
Opening Address post id: 11
YOUR
HONOUR,
The
prosecution has already outlined the basic facts related to this case so I will
only give a brief outline. On the
On
the
Young
Jack was of course terrified by these events and upon reaching the ground, he obtained an axe with which he cut the vine.
Unknown to Jack, Mr Giant had begun to climb the vine by this time and when the
vine was cut, Mr Giant fell some 500 metres to the ground and sustained a head
injury. The Defence concedes that Mr Giant died from the head injury that
resulted from this fall.
Young
Jack Jones was unaware of Mr Giant being on the beanstalk as the sky was
overcast and there were clouds above 500 metres. Inspector Morse, witness for
the Prosecution stated when interviewed, that it was impossible to see anything
above 500 metres.
Detective
Inspector Morse interviewed Mrs Nora Jones, the mother of the accused. He also
interviewed Jack Jones the accused. After this, Inspector Morse arrested young
Jack and took him back to the police station where Jack was charged with Murder
(section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW) and with the offences of Break, Enter
and Steal (section 112(sub-section 1) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW). Jack was
subsequently fingerprinted.
May I
point out Your Honour that under Section 18 sub section 1 of the Crimes Act,
“Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused ..causing the death charged... was done with reckless
indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily
harm upon some person.” Jack did not have the intent to kill or inflict
grievous bodily harm and he did not act act with
reckless indifference to human life.
In order to prove the charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt :
1.
the death of the deceased (the Defence concedes this fact)
2. an unlawful act of the accused which caused that death
3. such act was done with;
a.
intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; or
b. reckless indifference to human life.
This
unfortunate boy was the victim of a sad series of events over which he had very
little control. He did not intend to kill Mr Giant or to cause him grievous
bodily harm.
Your Honour, in relation to the charge of break enter and steal, it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused:
1.
wrongly took and carried away
2. the personal goods of another
3. with the intent of permanently depriving the owner
of such property
4. without his or her consent.
Jack
only took the golden goose because Mrs Giant whispered to him that he should do
so. Jack believed that Mrs Giant was a caring and concerned individual and that
she was interested in the welfare of poor young Jack. After all, she had helped
Jack by hiding him in a cupboard to protect him from her husband while her
husband ate his breakfast.
Your Honour, the crimes with which Jack has been charged are very serious and I
seek to remind you that in a criminal case, the onus of proving guilt rests
with the prosecution. The standard of proof required is “beyond reasonable
doubt”. This is a very high standard and should the prosecution not not reach this standard, it is
incumbent upon you to find the accused not guilty of the charges of Murder and
of Break Enter and Steal.
Your
Honour, Jack wishes to raise two defences to the charge of murder.. He claims that he was provoked by the conduct of the
deceased particularly by the words and gestures of Mr Giant. Jack also claims
that he acted in self defence in response to what he perceived to be Mr Giant’s
imminent attack upon his person.
Your
Honour, When such defences are raised, the burden of
proof is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of
the accused was not caused by provocation and that the accused was not acting
in self defence. Again, there is very high degree of proof required.
The
Defence will call two witnesses. Firstly, Jack Jones, the accused and secondly,
Mrs Nora Jones, the mother of the accused and in whose yard the death of Mr
Arthur Giant occurred. Jack will tell of his perception of fear and his lack of
intent to kill. He will also tell of his belief that Mrs Giant encouraged him
to take the Goose that laid the golden egg for some unknown reason, perhaps as
a gift.
Mrs
Jones will tell the court of her observation of Jack cutting down the
beanstalk, the descent of Mr Giant and the threatening words shouted at Jack by
Mr Giant.
From: MichaelBrogan Subject: Prosecution
case post id: 12
Please find below the first statement for the
prosecution/plaintiff (PW1). Would the defence team please begin to
cross-examine PW1. (Note both schools should respond
to each other now without prompting from me). Please reply to this screen - do
not start a new topic during the examination of this witness.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA GIANT
I, MARTHA GIANT, make oath and says as follows:-
1. I
am 60 years old. I am the wife of the deceased, Mr Arthur Giant.
2. I
reside at a cottage built by my late husband in Cloudland, My late husband and
I lived happily for 40 years.
3. On
He said:
"Please
Mrs, I just want something to eat."
I
said:
"Never
mind that, if my husband comes down, he will eat you. Get out!"
4. At
that moment, I heard my husband upstairs singing his favourite song called Fe Fi Fo Fum. I knew he would be downstairs very quickly and I was
afraid of what he might do to the boy who had broken in. I said to the boy:
"Quick, hide in this
cupboard."
5.
The boy got into the cupboard which I left open just a crack so that he could
breathe.
6. My
husband came into the kitchen, sat down and ate his breakfast. During breakfast
he asked me to bring in his goose which we kept in the backyard and which lays
golden eggs. I gave the goose to my husband who put it on the table and it laid
a golden egg.
7.
Shortly after this, my husband fell asleep, as he usually does after breakfast.
I had forgotten
about the boy in the cupboard and I turned around to do the dishes. I heard a
noise behind me and I turned around to see the boy had come out of the cupboard
and grabbed the goose and the egg. He ran back through the cat-flap but a noise
from the goose woke my husband who chased him outside. I saw the boy disappear
down a giant beanstalk and I saw my husband follow him. was
shouting words to the effect of:
8.
From the moment he woke up until I saw him disappear down the beanstalk, my
husband was shouting words to the effect of:
"I will carve
you up. I will crunch your bones to make my bed."
9.
About one hour later, Inspector Morse came to my door and told me my husband
was dead. I was taken in the police helicopter to the location of my husband's
body where I identified him.
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 13
Martha
Giant, what did you say to Jack when you heard your husband coming up the
stairs?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 14
I
said "Quick, hide in the cupboard."
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 15
So you permitted him to be in the house?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 16
Yes. I
did.
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 17
Why did you tell Jack to get in the cupboard?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 18
Because my husband would get very angry that someone had
broken into the house.
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 19
So are you suggesting that your husband has violent tendencies?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 20
No,
he is protective of his house and his wife.
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 21
Did
he threaten Jack on that day by saying things such as "I will crunch your
bones"?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 24
No. I
don't think so.
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 25
Would
a little boy like Jack pose a threat to your sizeable family?
From: Kambala re: Prosecution case post id: 26
Yes,
because he could easily go unnoticed around the house and steal things.
From: Michael Brogan re:
Prosecution case post id: 27
Scots:
Please make this your last question
From: scots re:
Prosecution case post id: 28
You said you saw him take the goose. Did you tell Jack to come back before
your husband came in?
From: Kambala re:
Prosecution case post id: 29
No I
didn't.
From: Michael Brogan re:
Prosecution case post id: 30
Cross-examination of PW1 has now
finished. Does the prosecuion/plaintiff have any
questions in re-examination? Is so, please ask them now. You should upload your
re-examination questions and responses in one block.
From: Kambala Re-Examination
of PW1 post id: 31
Did you invite Jack into your house?
No.
Did you give him permission to take the goose?
No.
Why didn't you call after him when you saw him take the goose?
Because he ran out the door, and my husband chased him.
No further questions, Your Honour.
From: Michael Brogan PW2 post id: 32
Please find below the second statement for the prosecution/plaintiff
(PW2). Would the defence team please begin to cross-examine PW2.
(Note both schools should respond to each other now without prompting from me).
Please use the reply button - as before.
STATEMENT OF INSPECTOR ALBERT MORSE
I,
ALBERT MORSE, make oath and say as follows:-
1. At
about
2. When I arrived at the Jones' residence, I observed a very large man, who I
now know to be the deceased, Mr Arthur Giant lying on the ground with an
obvious head wound. Next to him was the trunk of a large green beanstalk
growing out of the ground. This beanstalk had been recently severed about four
feet from the round and sap was still oozing from the cut. The rest of the
beanstalk, which was approximately one kilometre long, was lying in the field
next to the Jones' house. At the house I found Mrs Nora Jones who was very
upset. With her was her son, Jack Jones, and he was holding a goose with an egg
which was apparently made of gold.
On
the kitchen table of the house was an axe and on the blade of the axe was sap
which forensic investigation revealed to have come from the beanstalk.
3. I
asked Jack to wait outside and when he was gone I took a statement from Mrs
Jones.
4.
After having taken this statement from Mrs Jones, I went outside and spoke to
Jack Jones. I confiscated the goose and golden egg from him.
5. I
then said to Jack:
"Jack,
I am arresting you for the murder of Arthur Giant. You do not have to say
anything but anything you do say will be taken down and used as evidence. Do
you wish to say anything?"
Jack
said:
"I
never meant to kill him. I thought he was going to eat me. I was scared. I'm
really sorry. I only wanted to make my mum happy."
6. I
then took Jack back to the police station where he was charged and
fingerprinted. He then made a full statement. I then attended at the home of of Mrs Martha Giant and told her of her husband's death. I
took a statement from her.
7. On
the morning in question, the sky above Jack Jones' house was overcast and the
clouds were about 500 metres above the ground.
From: scots re: PW2
post id: 33
How tall is Mr.Giant?
From: Kambala re: PW2 post id: 34
Mr
Giant is approximately 34'10" in height, which is pretty tall.
From: scots re: PW2 post id: 35
How tall is Jack?
From: Kambala re: PW2 post id: 36
Jack
Jones? 5'9"
From: scots re: PW2 post id: 37
Is it
reasonable to suggest that a little boy of 5'9" be terrified of being
chased by a 34'10" giant?
From: Kambala re: PW2 post id: 38
No.
From: scots re: PW2 post id: 39
So if you were being chased by a 35' man who was yelling "I will
crunch your bones", you wouldn't be at all scared?
From: Kambala re: PW2 post id: 40
No.
From: scots re: PW2 post id: 41
On the day of the incident, what was the altitude of the cloud base?
From: Kambala re: PW2 post id: 42
The altitude of the cloud cover was approximately 500 metres to my
reckoning.
From: scots re:
PW2 post id: 43
And how far did the giant fall?
From: Kambala re:
PW2 post id: 44
I
would have to say that the giant fell a little over 500 metres.
From: Michael Brogan re: PW2
post id: 45
Scots: PLease make this your last question
From: scots re: PW2
post id: 46
So Jack could not have seen Mr Giant on the Beanstalk. Is that correct?
From: Kambala re:
PW2 post id: 47
I
can't say what Jack did or didn't see.
From: Michael Brogan re:
PW2 post id: 48
Cross-examination of PW2 has now finished. Does the prosecuion/plaintiff
have any questions in re-examination? Is so, please ask them now. You should
upload your re-examination questions and responses in one block.
From: Kambala Re-Examination
of PW2 post id: 49
No need for re-examination, Your Honour.
From: Michael Brogan DW1
post id: 50
Please
find below the first statement for the defence (DW1). Would the
prosecution/plaintiff team please begin to cross-examine DW1.
(Note both schools should respond to each other now without prompting from me).
Again please use the reply button.
STATEMENT OF JACK JONES
I,
JACK JONES, make oath and say as follows:-
1. I
am a farmer and I live with my Mum at White Cottage,
2. On
3. My
Mum threw me out of the house last night because she was angry with me and I
put the beans in the earth and this morning when I woke up there was a giant
beanstalk.
4. I
climbed up the beanstalk to see what was there and I found this house where
everything was huge. I went inside through a little door and the lady there
said I could stay if I waited in the cupboard until her husband went.
5. While
I was in the cupboard I looked through the crack and saw her husband at the
table with a goose that laid a golden egg. I thought that if me and my Mum had
that goose we would not be poor anymore so, when the man went to sleep, I
grabbed the goose and the egg and I nicked out through the little door again.
As I did so, the lady in the kitchen saw me and whispered words to the effect
of:
"Quick, run like the wind, before he wakes up. Keep that goose
quiet."
Unfortunately, just then the goose made a honking sound.
6. As
I was climbing down the beanstalk I realised that the giant had woken up and
was chasing me. He was shouting things like "I want to eat you, I want to
grind you up" and I became very frightened. I was just absolutely
panicking.
7.
When I got to the bottom I ran inside to my mum and asked for the axe so that I
could chop down the beanstalk. I did not know how far behind me the giant was
and I was hoping to chop down the beanstalk so that he could not follow.
8.
Chopping down the beanstalk took longer than I thought and by the time I got
through it he was almost down. The beanstalk fell into the field and the giant
fell with it and he never moved again. I did not mean to kill him, I just wanted to chop down the beanstalk so he could
not follow me. I was afraid he would hurt me or hurt my mum. He was saying
terrible things. I was very frightened.
From: Kambala re:
DW1 post id: 51
1.
Did you say to your mother "I must get an axe and chop down the beanstalk
and kill the giant."?
From: scots re: DW1 post id: 52
Yes I
said it, but only because I was so scared and I didn't want any harm to come to
my mummy or myself.
From: Kambala re:
DW1 post id: 53
2.
But you intended to kill him?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: scots re:
DW2 post id: 85
NO,
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Michael Brogan re: DW2 post id: 86
Cross-examination of DW2 has now finished.
Does the defence have any questions in re-examination? Is so, please ask them
now. You should upload your re-examination questions and responses in one
block.
From: Kambala re: DW2 post id: 87
Why
is this not possible, if he usually lies to his mother and often disobeys her?
From: scots re:
DW2 post id: 88
Q: Does
your son lie?
A: He has a vivid imagination and makes up stories but would never lie about
something as serious as murder.
Q: What state was Jack in when he asked for the axe?
A: Jack was terrified and I wasn't sure what was going on because I couldn't
see anything except the beanstalk.
Q: Is your son a responsible young man?
A: Yes, he's been marvellous since his daddy died.
From: Michael Brogan Adjournment post id: 89
We will now adjourn for ten minutes while both teams finalise their final
addresses to the Court.
From: Michael Brogan Closing
addresses post id: 90
The
Court is now open. Would the prosecution/plaintiff team please upload its
closing address. The defence team will be required to
upload their closing address in two minutes time.
From: Kambala re: Closing addresses post id: 91
This
is a prosecution for a criminal matter in which Jack Jones has been charged
with the crimes of Murder, as well as Break, Enter and Steal.
Your
Honour, in order for the prosecution to succeed today, we must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1)
the death of the deceased;
2) an unlawful act of the accused which caused that death;
3) Such act was done with:
a) intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm or
b) reckless indifference to human life
The death of the deceased is not in question, similarly the cause of the death
is not in question. Mr Giant died as a result of head injuries sustained after
a fall caused by the defendant. The court has heard evidence today that the
defendant did in fact have intention to kill Mr Giant, as he said himself “I
must get the axe and chop down the beanstalk to kill the giant.” Thte elements recquired to prove
the murder have clearly been satisfied, as evidence of the death, cause of
death and the defendant’s intention to kill Mr Giant are apparent.
Section
23 (1) of the Crimes Act states “Where on the trial of a person for murder, it
appears that the act causing death was an act done under provocation, the Judge
shall acquit the accused of murder and find the accused guilty of
manslaughter.”
An
act is done under provocation if:
a) an act results from loss of self control by the accused;
b) it is induced by any conduct of the deceased (including grossly insulting
words or gestures) towards or affecting the accused;
c) the conduct of the deceased is such as could have induced an ordinary person
in the position of the accused so far to lose self control as to form the
intention to kill the deceased;
d) the deceased’s conduct occurred immediately before the accused’s
act.
However,
the court has heard evidence today that Jones did infact
steal a goose and egg from Mr Giant (as will be proven further on in this
address). Jones was aware and in control of his actions at this time, as his
purpose was clear, “I thought that if me and my Mum
had that gooses we would not be poor anymore.” He remained in this state of
mind until he had begun climbing down the beanstalk, as he did not realize he
was being chased until this time. For these reasons, a loss of self control was
not the cause of the defendant’s actions, as he had a controlled state of mind,
and clear intention to kill Mr Giant.
Also,
Mr Giant’s actions can not be seen as provocation for manslaughter as he was
responding to Mr Jones’s action of stealing Mr Giant’s property. He was simply
trying to retrieve what was rightfully his. i.e. Jones
provided the provocation and not Mr Giant. The incident was clearly induced by Jones, therefore Mr Giant is not responsible for Jones’s
actions.
The
threat of Mr Giant was not a pressing one, as he was over 500m behind Mr Jones
up a beanstalk. Therefore the conduct of the deceased was not such as could
have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accused so far to lose
self control as to form the intention to kill the deceased. The prosecution
does not deny that Jones may have been somewhat frightened, but the threat was
not so strong that an ‘ordinary person’ such as Jones would have formed such
strong intention to kill.
Mr
Jones was also charged with the crime of Break, Enter and Steal. The
prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1) The accused broke and entered a dwelling-house
2) committed a felony therein.
Your
Honour, the court has heard evidence today that the defendant entered the house
of Mr and Mrs Giant via a cat-flap without their knowledge. Once inside, the
defendant remained there despite being asked to leave, hence satisfying the
first element of the break, enter and steal charge.
i) Also, the defendant wrongfully took and carried away,
ii) a goose and an egg, being the personal goods of Mr and Mrs Giant,
iii)with the intent of permanently depriving Mr and Mrs Giant of these so that
Jones would obtain financial gain
iv) and did so despite Mr and Mrs obvious protest.
The
first witness for the Defence was Jack Jones. He brought discredit to himself,
in that he said that he never disobeyed his mother, yet he infact
did when he was at the markets. He also admitted to having the intention to
kill the giant. The second witness for the Defence was Mrs Nora Jones, who is
Jack's mother. She verified the fact that Jack was a disobedient boy who has
often been in trouble and ignores his mother. She also verified the fact that Jack
intended to kill the giant. On the whole, these two witnesses have brought
discredit to themselves and their evidence has often been contradictory.
Your
honour the defence have failed to seriously discredit the witnesses for the
prosecution, and have failed to seriously disprove the elements of the
prosecutions case. The prosecution trusts the court makes a fair decision and
asks that you find the defendant guilty of the charges of murder, as well as
break, enter and
From: Scots re: Closing addresses post
id: 92
Your
honour;
Our
client, Jack Jones has been charged with murder and with the crimes of break,
enter and steal. The defence concedes that Mr Arthur Giant did fall to earth on
Jack has been charged with Murder under section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW
and with the offences of Break, Enter and Steal (section 112(sub-section 1) of
the Crimes Act 1900 NSW). Jack was subsequently fingerprinted. Your Honour
under Section 18 sub section 1 of the Crimes Act,1900
“Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused ..causing the death charged... was done with reckless indifference
to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some
person.” Jack did not have the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm
and he did not act act with reckless indifference to
human life.
In
order to prove the charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt:
1. the death of the deceased (the Defence concedes this fact)
2. an unlawful act of the accused which caused that
death
3. such act was done with;
a. intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; or
b. reckless indifference to human life.
This unfortunate boy he had very little control over the events that unfolded
on
Your Honour, in relation to the charge of break enter and steal, it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused :
1. wrongly took and carried away
2. the personal goods of another
3. with the intent of permanently depriving the owner
of such property
4. without his or her consent.
Jack
has raised two defences to the charge of murder. Firstly, Jack claims that the
threats of grinding Jack’s bones and eating him put fear into a young boy’s
mind and caused him to flee in the belief that his life was threatened.
Secondly, he claims that the words and threats that Mr Giant continued to shout
which we now know happened as Mr Giant descended the beanstalk amounted to
provocation.
Now,
it must be pointed out that, in addition to the lack of mens
rea, it is possible that the witnesses for the
prosecution have their recollection of the day's events confused. We bring to
Your Honour's attention several discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence,
specifically:
1) In
Martha Giant's initial testimony, she avowed that she did not permit Jack to be
in the Giant household. However, in the same testimony, she admitted to aiding
and abetting Jack in hiding from her husband; we put it to Your Honour that
this amounts to allowing Jack to be in the household. Also, in her
cross-examination, Mrs. Giant changed her testimony, saying that she did in
fact permit Jack to be in the Giant household.
2)
Mrs. Giant claims that she did not give Jack the goose; however, our client
claims she did. We are aware that in this case, evidence has become the word of
one person against another; however, this discrepancy means that there is an unfortuate lack of hard evidence against our client.
Thus,
we put it to Your Honour that our client is not guilty of the charges, on the
following grounds:
1) He did not commit murder, as he was acting in self-defence, and in the
defence of another, vis his
mother.
2) He is not guilty of break, enter and steal, on the grounds that he was
invited to stay in the house, and told to run away with the goose by Mrs.
Giant.
From: Michael Brogan re:
Closing addresses post id: 93
The
Court will adjourn for ten minutes while I make my decision.
From: Michael Brogan re:
Closing addresses post id: 94
Kambala.please repost your closing address (the second half please)
Scots. please check to ensure that you have a full
closing address on the website.
Your honour the defence have failed to seriously discredit the witnesses
for the prosecution, and have failed to seriously disprove the elements of the
prosecutions case. The prosecution trusts the court makes a fair decision and
asks that you find the defendant guilty of the charges of murder, as well as
break, enter and steal.
THE END
From: scots re: Closing addresses post id: 96
Thus,
we put it to Your Honour that the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable
doubt the charges of murder and break, enter and steal. If there is any
reasonable doubt in your mind, then you must find Mr. Jones not guilty.
From: Michael Brogan :
Decision post id: 97
The Court is now open. Before I
conclude the proceedings today I would like to make the following statement of
thanks.
What has
been experienced on the internet today is a result of the hard work of several committed and hard
working people.
Firstly, I would like to thank Robyn
Cross, the Mock Trial Competition Co-ordinator from the Law Society of New
South Wales - without Robyn's enthusiasm and assistance, coupled with the
support of the Law Society of the New South Wales, the domestic mock trial
competition in New South Wales and this virtual trial would not be possible.
Secondly, thanks go to Phillip
Greenwood SC, Brad Watts and Neil Geikie who are on
the working party for this virtual mock trial and the International Mock Trial
- each of these gentlemen provided assistance and advice as to the rules and
running order.
Thirdly, I thank the British
Council, particularly Gill Edwards and Glenn Dudley, for initiating this
information technology project and supplying much valuable financial support.
Finally, and I speak on behalf of all
involved this evening, thanks go to Ian Vaille
and Robyn Webster of the ABC for the 'behind the scenes' computer programming
and internet expertise. Without their efforts the idea of mock trials across
vast distances would not be possible.
Now to the
'decision'.
Both schools made a great effort this evening and should be commended
for that. There was clearly a tremendous amount of preparation involved and
that was reflected in the ease which this new, technologically-based trial took
place.
Please find below my decision on the
case of R v Jack Jones.
The
charges before me today are very serious ones.
On
the charge of murder I find the following proved:
1. that the defendant caused the death of the deceased
2. that the act causing death was unlawful
3. the act was done with intent to kill (exhibited by
statements made by the accused.)
but according to Woolmington v DPP the
Prosecution must prove that the accused was not acting in self defence. I am
not satisfied that the prosecution have fulfilled this burden.
Accordingly,
I found the defendant not guilty on the charge of murder.
On
the charge of break, enter and steal I found the following proved:
1.
that the accused broke and entered a dwelling house (the initial breaking was
not permitted, regardless of Mrs Giant's confusion once her husband was on the
rampage)
2. that the accused committed a felony (larceny) while
therein
3. to wit a. Jack wrongfully took and carried away
b. the goods of Mr & Mrs Giant
c. with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of that property
d. without the owner's consent (Mrs Giant did not consent to the taking of the
goose and egg)
Accordingly, I find that the prosecution case is proved on this charge.
No
doubt, with more time the questions asked (in cross-examination) and the
reasons for my decision could have been more fully developed (and in my case
not subject to appeal). However, I think that in the circumstances of this
inaugural trial all parties have done a tremendous job. Well done.
This Court is now closed.
NOTE: Most people would disagree with Inspector Morse's response that a
5'9" boy would be scared by a 34'10" giant.
From: Kambala Closing
Comments post id: 98
Thanks
everyone for allowing us to take part in this trial. We wish Scots Albury all the best in the remainder of the Mock Trial
competition this year.
From: scots 19:21:34 Thanks
post id: 99
Scots
would like to thank Michael Brogan, Robyn Cross, Robyn Webster and the ABC and
British Council Thanks also to Kambala Mock Trial
Team.
|
|
|
Contract
A contract is an agreement between two or
more parties which is enforceable. To be enforceable generally, there must be
an offer by one party, an acceptance of that offer by the other party and
"valuable consideration". Valuable consideration is what is given or
done in return for the promise. The usual consideration given is money, goods
or some promise to do something or refrain from doing something. A contract may
be oral or in writing.
Criminal Proceedings
Proceedings usually brought by the Crown
(often the Police) where there has been a breach of the law and a penalty is
imposed in an Act for that breach. The common "law" involved is the
New South Wales Crimes Act which deals with the common crimes including murder,
manslaughter, robbery, stealing and assault (including rape). Proceedings may
be brought for statutory offences (i.e. breach of statute law), including
breaches of N.S.W. Legislation such as the Motor Traffic Act, the Companies
Act, the Licensing Act, the Poisons Act and the Pure Foods Act, and
Commonwealth legislation, such as the Commonwealth Crimes Act, the Social
Securities Act, the Customs Act, and the various Taxation Acts.
Defendant
A defendant is a party against whom an
action or charge has been brought. Once a defendant in criminal proceedings is
committed for trial before a judge and jury, he/she is referred to as the
accused.
Equity
Historically, the common law (made by
judges) became entrenched in formal rules which could give rise to injustices.
A system of equity also made by judges came into being which provides remedies
where it would be unjust or unfair to enforce the common law. Cases now dealt
with in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court include claims against people
holding property for others (trustees), claims to stop people invading legal
rights (injunctions), and claims requiring people to carry out their contracts
(specific performance).
Exhibits
Documents, articles of clothing,
equipment, etc., which are tendered to the Court as evidence by either of the
parties to a case, and which are admitted as evidence by the judge or
magistrate are referred to as exhibits.
Judge
A person appointed to determine disputes
between parties. In
Jury
Members of the
community who determine questions as to what happened (fact). There are twelve jurors in a criminal trial and usually four in civil
proceedings.
Magistrate
A person who presides
over Local Courts. Local Courts deal
with small debts, less serious crimes, inquests into violent and unexplained
deaths and investigations into whether a person may have committed a serious
crime (see Committal Proceedings). Magistrates are addressed as "Your
Worship".
Mens Rea
An intent to commit a crime. (A crime is an offence for which a penalty is
prescribed). Mens rea is an
essential element of all common law offences, but not always of statutory
offences.
Negligence
Negligence involves the failure of one
party to exercise proper care towards another party and as a result, that other
party has suffered an injury or loss -called "damages". Contributory
Negligence refers to a situation where even though the first party has been
negligent, the other has not shown sufficient care to protect him/herself and
by these actions contributed to his/her own sufferings or damages.
Plaintiff
A person who brings or
commences a civil action.
Precedent
A principle established in a past case. A
judge or magistrate is bound to follow a decision in a previous case (in which
the facts are similar) where the court handing down the decision is higher in
the court system. A hierarchy of courts is set out in Part 12. In some cases
N.S.W. Courts follow English decisions or decisions of superior courts outside
the N.S.W. court system.
Prosecutor
A person who presents
evidence and conducts the case against an accused person in criminal
proceedings. In Local Courts, he or she is
usually a specially trained member of the police force. In criminal trials he
or she is called a crown prosecutor and is usually appointed from the ranks of
practising barristers.
Solicitor
A person who is
qualified in law and trained to handle legal matters generally. Some solicitors specialise in court appearances but because solicitors
also handle other matters they do not usually appear in superior courts (e.g.
Supreme Court, Federal Court and High Court).
Trial
This word is commonly used to cover all
legal proceedings. However, more exactly it refers to a criminal case which is
heard by a judge and jury.
Witness
A person who can give
evidence in relation to the facts in issue in legal proceedings.
The Constitution of Mock Trial
Teams
The prosecution/plaintiff team shall consist of:
- 1st Barrister
- 2nd Barrister
- Instructing Solicitor
- 2 Witnesses
- Court Officer
The Defence team shall consist of:
- 1st Barrister
- 2nd Barrister
- Instructing Solicitor
- 2 Witnesses
- Magistrate's Clerk/Judge's
Associate
Barristers
The first barrister for each team will announce appearances and give the
opening address. He or she will then examine in chief the first witness. The
first barrister for the opposing team will then cross-examine and the first
barrister may then re-examine.
Similarly, the second barrister will examine the second witness with the
opposing second barrister cross-examining and re-examining as appropriate. The
second barrister will announce the conclusion of his/her case and give the
closing address.
Only the barrister responsible for examining-in-chief or cross-examining
the witness may object to questions put to the witness or evidence given by the
witness.
The Magistrate/Judge assesses their performance on many aspects of their
presentation including;
· Appropriate presentation of facts and law in
opening address
· Proper introduction of evidence
· Questioning in accordance with rules of
evidence during examination in chief
· Appropriate re-examination or omission of
re-examination as appropriate
· Cross-examination directed at relevant parts
of evidence in chief
· Avoidance of unnecessary repetition of
evidence in chief
· Cross-examination on relevant points of own
case
· Appropriate objections
· Making considered responses to objections
· Summarising evidence and issues of fact
accurately in closing address
· Making appropriate submissions on issues of
law in closing address
· Persuasion
Solicitors
The role of the instructing solicitor involves co-ordinating the
preparation of the case and instructing the barristers during the hearing of
the case. Solicitors should also assist in the preparation of the closing
address. The solicitor's pre-trial notes for the preparation of the case show a
grasp of the case by identifying relevant issues, areas for cross-examination,
likely objections and responses. Solicitors should assist barristers during the
trial by recording the evidence given and pointing out important matters. The solicitors are judged
on the following aspects:
- Quality
of pre-trial notes, identifying preparation and grasp of case etc.
- Apparent active participation in proceedings
- Quality of notes of proceedings
Magistrate's Clerk/Judge's Associate
The role involves:
- marking all exhibits according to the
Magistrates/Judges' direction.
- Keeping
the time sheet and noting the time when each examination in chief and
cross examination commenced, ended and its duration. The time sheet should
be keyed to the Magistrate/Judge during the mid-trial adjournment.
- Keeping
the list of objections made by each barrister and noting the objection,
the nature of the objection and the Magistrate's/Judge's ruling. The
objection sheet should also be keyed to the Magistrate/Judge at the
mid-trial adjournment.
- The
Clerk/Associate is judged according to his/her performance of these
duties.
Court Officer
This role involves:
- Opening the
Court
- Closing the
Court
- Maintaining order
in the Court
- Calling
witnesses. The Court Officer must give the order of witnesses as they
appear. There is no choice
in the order of witnesses
- Swearing witnesses
- keying
documents to the Magistrate's/Judge's Clerk for marking as necessary .
- Keeping
time and signifying when time for each examination is reached. A bell
should be rung when there is two minutes left.
- Keeping
the time sheet and noting the time when each examination in chief and
cross examination commenced, ended and its duration. The time sheet should
be keyed to the Magistrate/Judge during the mid-trial adjournment.
- The
Court Officer is judged according to his/her performance of these duties.
Witnesses
Witnesses must appear in the order in which they appear in the script.
There is no choice in the order of witnesses.
The witnesses comprise the parties to the action (plaintiff/prosecution
or defence) and other persons who can state facts (or opinions) relevant to the
case
The witnesses' statements are included amongst the material prepared by
the Law Society and must be adhered to strictly. There must be no additional
material used - no expansion material, no deletions, additional material, ie., maps, diagrams, plans, exhibits, apart from the ones
provided by the Law Society.
The witnesses provide most of the information to be used in the trial
and their accurate recall is important.
During examination-in-chief the witness places his or her statement of
oral evidence before the Court.
The performance of the witness is judged on several features including:
- full
and accurate recital of evidence in chief
- Apparent preparation
for cross-examination
- Ability
to copy with cross-examination.
- Witnesses
should not be prompted by anyone and this could lead to loss of points or
disqualification.
The Witness's statement must be recited in the order
given. There must be no deletions, additions or change in order given. Do not
overdo this rule and harass the witness by insisting on every little word (and,but etc)
If a witness is not reciting the statements in the order given, or
deleting or adding to the statement, or there is any inconsistency whatsoever,
the opposing team may request a ruling from the Magistrate/Judge by saying:
"Your Worship/Honour, I draw your attention to the inconsistency in
the witnesses' statements. Under rule 41 of the Mock Trial Manual this is not
allowed. Can I have a ruling please?"
This should not be treated as an objection - just a request for a
ruling.
Grounds for Objection - Evidence
Objections may include the following:
Only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant means the evidence proves
or tends to prove a fact that is in dispute. For example, in a case involving a
collision of two motor vehicles, the speed that the vehicles were travelling
would probably be relevant, but what the drivers ate for breakfast would
probably be irrelevant.
All irrelevant material is inadmissible. This is an over-riding
principle that applies to all evidence put before the court.
However, the mere fact that evidence is relevant does not make it automatically
admissible. The application of the other rules of evidence used in the mock
trial competition may admissible. For example if the Rule in Brown v Dunn is
breached.
Opinion
This rule relates to conclusions or views formed by witnesses based on facts
which they have observed. Opinions may not be given in evidence (if relevant)
For example, the observation by a witness that another person was red in the
face and shaking his fists would be admissible, but the conclusion or opinion
that the person was very upset or was angry with him would not be admissible.
The exception to this rule is where opinion evidence is given by witness
who is an expert in the field to which the opinion relates. Expert in this
context means someone who has special expertise in a field, whether from
qualifications or formal training, or from experience in that field. Before the
opinion is given in evidence, the previous evidence given by that witness must
qualify him or her as an expert in the field to which the opinion relates. This
is done by leading evidence from him or her about his or her qualifications,
experience and so on.
Hearsay
Hearsay is the statement by a witness of what he or she heard someone
else say. Subject to the exceptions set out below, such evidence is
inadmissible as to the truth of what the other person said.
For example, the statement by a witness, "Mrs Smith told me she saw
Mr Simpson driving the car", is not admissible to prove that Mr Simpson
was in fact driving the car. It is only admissible as evidence that Mrs Smith
said it if that fact is relevant.
The reasons for the hearsay rule are:
(i) Hearsay is not the best evidence - Mrs
Smith should give her own account to the court on oath.
(ii) It is second-hand evidence which means that it may have changed in the
re-telling.
(iii) There is no opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the comment
or observation to test his or her competence or credibility. For example, it
may be that Mrs Smith was not wearing her glasses at the time, or had her view
obstructed or had some reason to make up a story about Mr Simpson.
(iv) Hearsay evidence is easy to concoct and very difficult to disprove.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
(i) When the statement is made in the
"heat of the moment" and forms part of the overall picture of what
occurred.
(ii) When the statement is made by one of the parties in the proceedings and is
a statement against that party's interests, for example, an admission.
(iii) When the relevance of the contents of the statement is not to establish
the truth of the statement but only the fact that the statement was made.
Character Evidence
Evidence of bad character by a defendant may not be led by the
prosecution/plaintiff. Evidence of good character may be led by either party,
but only if it is relevant. If the defendant raises his or her good character
or attacks the character of a prosecution/plaintiff witness, the
prosecution/plaintiff may cross-examine the defendant on his or her bad
character.
Direct Speech
Conversations which are significant should be related by the witness in
direct speech. That is, the conversation should be recited as it occurred and
not summarised by the witness.
The witnesses statements should still comply
with the form in which the statements are made.
For example, "Brian said me, "Could you please drive? I think
I have had too much to drink" is the proper way to give evidence, not
"Brian asked me to drive because he had had too much to drink."
Grounds for Objections - Procedural
Objections may be lodged only on the following procedural grounds:
Leading or Double Questions
A leading question is one in which the form of the question suggests the
answer. For example, "Was the car blue?"
Double or multiple questions are objectionable because they cannot
necessarily be answered with a single answer. For example,the answer to the first part of the question might
be "yes" while the answer to the second part of the question might be
"no".
Failure to comply with the Rule in Browne v Dunn
The rule in Browne v Dunn requires, that unless prior notice has been
given of a cross examiner's intention to rely on evidence contradictory to that
given by the witness being cross-examined, the cross examiner must put to the
witness the nature of the contradictory evidence. A further explanation of this
rule is explained in the common law and is found under General Precedents.
Failure to comply with this rule and an objection to
evidence.
Once an objection has been lodged, and points awarded if the objection
is made correctly, the remainder of the evidence upon which the party relies is
allowed to continue to completion, although strictly
under this rule it should be disallowed.
Harassing or arguing with witnesses
Barristers may lodge an objection if opposing Counsel is harassing or arguing with a witness. This usually occurs during cross examination.
|
STATEMENT OF MRS MARTHA GIANT I, MARTHA GIANT, make oath and
says as follows:- 1. I am 60 years old. I am the
wife of the deceased, Mr Arthur Giant. 2. I reside at a cottage built by
my late husband in Cloudland, My late husband and I lived happily for 40
years. 3. On He said: "Please Mrs, I just want something to eat." I said: "Never mind that,
if my husband comes down, he will eat you. Get out!" |
4. At that moment, I heard my husband
upstairs singing his favourite song called Fe Fi Fo Fum. I knew he would be
downstairs very quickly and I was afraid of what he might do to the boy who
had broken in. I said to the boy: "Quick, hide in this
cupboard." 5. The boy got into the cupboard
which I left open just a crack so that he could breathe. 6. My husband came into the
kitchen, sat down and ate his breakfast. During breakfast he asked me to
bring in his goose which we kept in the backyard and which lays golden eggs.
I gave the goose to my husband who put it on the table and it laid a golden
egg. 7. Shortly after this, my husband
fell asleep, as he usually does after breakfast. I had forgotten about the
boy in the cupboard and I turned around to do the dishes. I heard a noise
behind me and I turned around to see the boy had come out of the cupboard and
grabbed the goose and the egg. He ran back through the cat-flap but a noise
from the goose woke my husband who chased him outside. I saw the boy
disappear down a giant beanstalk and I saw my husband follow him. |
|
8. From the moment he woke up
until I saw him disappear down the beanstalk, my husband was shouting words
to the effect of: "I will carve you up.
I will crunch your bones to make my bed." 9. About one hour later, Inspector
Morse came to my door and told me my husband was dead. I was taken in the
police helicopter to the location of my husband's body where I identified
him. |
|
|
STATEMENT OF INSPECTOR ALBERT MORSE I, ALBERT MORSE, make oath and say
as follows:- 1. At about 2. When I arrived at the Jones'
residence, I observed a very large man, who I now know to be the deceased, Mr
Arthur Giant lying on the ground with an obvious head wound. Next to him was
the trunk of a large green beanstalk growing out of the ground. This
beanstalk had been recently severed about four feet from the round and sap
was still oozing from the cut. The rest of the beanstalk, which was
approximately one kilometre long, was lying in the field next to the Jones'
house. At the house I found Mrs Nora Jones who was very upset. With her was
her son, Jack Jones, and he was holding a goose with an egg which was apparently
made of gold. On the kitchen table of the house
was an axe and on the blade of the axe was sap which forensic investigation
revealed to have come from the beanstalk. 3. I asked Jack to wait outside
and when he was gone I took a statement from Mrs Jones. 4. After having taken this
statement from Mrs Jones, I went outside and spoke to Jack Jones. I
confiscated the goose and golden egg from him. 5. I then said to Jack: "Jack, I am arresting
you for the murder of Arthur Giant. You do not have to say anything but
anything you do say will be taken down and used as evidence. Do you wish to
say anything?"
Jack said: "I never meant to kill him. I thought he was going to eat me. I was scared. I'm really sorry. I only wanted to make my mum happy." 6. I then took Jack back to the
police station where he was charged and fingerprinted. He then made a full
statement. I then attended at the home of of Mrs
Martha Giant and told her of her husband's death. I took a statement from
her. 7. On the morning in question, the
sky above Jack Jones' house was overcast and the clouds were about 500 metres
above the ground. |
|
STATEMENT OF MR JACK JONES
|
I, JACK JONES, make oath and say
as follows:- 1. I am a farmer and I live with
my Mum at White Cottage, 2. On |
|
3. My Mum threw me out of the house
last night because she was angry with me and I put the beans in the earth and
this morning when I woke up there was a giant beanstalk.
4. I climbed up the beanstalk to see
what was there and I found this house where everything was huge. I went inside
through a little door and the lady there said I could stay if I waited in the
cupboard until her husband went.
5. While I was in the cupboard I
looked through the crack and saw her husband at the table with a goose that
laid a golden egg. I thought that if me and my Mum had that goose we would not
be poor anymore so, when the man went to sleep, I grabbed the goose and the egg
and I nicked out through the little door again. As I did so, the lady in the kitchen
saw me and whispered words to the effect of:
"Quick, run like the wind,
before he wakes up. Keep that goose quiet."
Unfortunately, just then the goose
made a honking sound.
6. As I was climbing down the
beanstalk I realised that the giant had woken up and was chasing me. He was
shouting things like "I want to eat you, I want to grind you up"
and I became very frightened. I was just absolutely panicking.
7. When I got to the bottom I ran
inside to my mum and asked for the axe so that I could chop down the beanstalk.
I did not know how far behind me the giant was and I was hoping to chop down
the beanstalk so that he could not follow.
8. Chopping down the beanstalk took
longer than I thought and by the time I got through it he was almost down. The
beanstalk fell into the field and the giant fell with it and he never moved
again. I did not mean to kill him, I just wanted to
chop down the beanstalk so he could not follow me. I was afraid he would hurt
me or hurt my mum. He was saying terrible things. I was very
frightened.
STATEMENT OF MRS NORA JONES
I, NORA JONES, make oath and say as
follows:-
1. Yesterday I sent Jack to the
market to sell the cow as we had no money. He came back with a bag of what he
said were magic beans and I was angry so I threw him out of the house.
2. That was the last I saw of him
until this morning at about 11.00 when I heard him yelling outside. He burst
into the house and said to me:
"Mum, mum,,
where is the axe?"
I said:
"Why Jack, what’s wrong? Where
have you been?"
He said:
"I climbed up a beanstalk and
found a giant’s house and then the giant chased me and he is going to eat me. I
am very frightened. I must get the axe and chop down the beanstalk and kill the
giant."
3. My son, Jack, has often been in
trouble and has a tendency to make up stories and tell lies. However, I had
never seen Jack as upset and scared as he was this morning and I believed him.
I grabbed the axe from the tool cupboard and gave it to Jack who rushed
outside.
4. I followed him outside and I saw
a giant beanstalk had grown in our field. Jack was chopping the beanstalk down
as quickly as he could and just as he was nearly through the stalk I saw, to my
horror, a large man descending the beanstalk. This man was shouting terrible
things at Jack and I could see Jack was very frightened. I was also very
frightened.
5. At the last minute, Jack managed
to get through the stalk and it toppled to the ground causing the man to fall
onto his head in our field. He stayed still where he landed and Jack ran back
towards me. We went inside and Jack showed me a goose and a golden egg which he
said he had found at the top of the beanstalk and he said words to the effect
of:
"It’s okay Mum, we’re rich now,
the giant can’t get us, everything will be
alright."
6. I did not know what to do so I
got a message to the police and Inspector Morse came.