*/
RARELY, in my experience, is a talk is so gripping and helpful that you wish it was longer. A packed Inner Temple Hall was treated to such a talk by Jonathan Sumption QC on 29 September 2009. His subject was Appellate Advocacy.
Throughout the talk he delighted the 300-strong audience with quips such as “Appellate judges are bigger than you and they hunt in packs”. These mild digs at the judges reminded everyone that this speaker was not a judge but a practising barrister like them. Jonathan shared some instructive insights into the judicial mind based on his experience. He said that judges had become less reverent of authority than in the past and that they cited fewer cases in their judgments these days. There was now a tendency to set out broad principles of law exemplified by the authorities across a range of subjects rather than applying authorities directly to the case being decided. He also noted and welcomed an increasing willingness by judges to consider the social and economic implications of their decisions in their judgments.
Starting with the premise that “Judges start with an instinctive view and work backwards to justify it”, Jonathan made some practical suggestions for skeleton arguments and oral advocacy. Here are five out of a much longer list that will be at the forefront of my mind when I appear in the Court of Appeal:
Perhaps the best question was “What can you do about the difficult judge?”. To this JS said “You can’t force him to listen, you can only hope he makes a real mess of the judgment. It is good to lose as comprehensively and unfairly as possible to make it easier in the Court of Appeal”. Alas, that such this excellent advice should be of such small comfort in civil work – with permission to appeal nearly always required, the judge rarely giving it and the costs of seeking permission from the Court of Appeal so high, the difficult judge may well escape his come-uppance.
Starting with the premise that “Judges start with an instinctive view and work backwards to justify it”, Jonathan made some practical suggestions for skeleton arguments and oral advocacy. Here are five out of a much longer list that will be at the forefront of my mind when I appear in the Court of Appeal:
Perhaps the best question was “What can you do about the difficult judge?”. To this JS said “You can’t force him to listen, you can only hope he makes a real mess of the judgment. It is good to lose as comprehensively and unfairly as possible to make it easier in the Court of Appeal”. Alas, that such this excellent advice should be of such small comfort in civil work – with permission to appeal nearly always required, the judge rarely giving it and the costs of seeking permission from the Court of Appeal so high, the difficult judge may well escape his come-uppance.
RARELY, in my experience, is a talk is so gripping and helpful that you wish it was longer. A packed Inner Temple Hall was treated to such a talk by Jonathan Sumption QC on 29 September 2009. His subject was Appellate Advocacy.
Throughout the talk he delighted the 300-strong audience with quips such as “Appellate judges are bigger than you and they hunt in packs”. These mild digs at the judges reminded everyone that this speaker was not a judge but a practising barrister like them. Jonathan shared some instructive insights into the judicial mind based on his experience. He said that judges had become less reverent of authority than in the past and that they cited fewer cases in their judgments these days. There was now a tendency to set out broad principles of law exemplified by the authorities across a range of subjects rather than applying authorities directly to the case being decided. He also noted and welcomed an increasing willingness by judges to consider the social and economic implications of their decisions in their judgments.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
