To be annoyed with school? Poss trigger warning.

[AntheaBelveden]

DD1 is 16, in her first year of sixth form. One of her A levels is law.

Her law teacher took the class to court today so they could see a case being tried.

The case turned out to be one of child sexual abuse.

DD1 has come home in floods of tears as the evidence they heard was very graphic and included testimony from one of the victims (it's a historical case, so the victims are now adults).

DD got very upset in the court, as did others from their class and asked the teacher if they could leave.

The teacher told them they could leave " if they really had to" but it may affect their marks at the end of the year.

AIBU to think they should have been allowed to leave?

[Lorelei76]

totally inappropriate

if a 16 year old said they "might" do forensic science in future, I doubt they'd be taken to a crime scene...!

[2kids2dogsnosense]

It is a lot for a 16 year old though

16 year-olds can legally have sex, marry and enlist in the armed forces and go off to kill and be killed.

I'm sure the evidence was horribly upsetting. I imagine it would have been horribly upsetting for most adults, too.

Unfortunately these horrors are a fact of life. I wish they weren't.

[SometimesItRains]

Totally inappropriate. I'm a lawyer - did a law degree and have practised for 8 years and have avoided anything like that. In fact I remember when I was interested in law at age 17 and my mum rang up the court to see if I could go and watch a case, the receptionist suggested I avoided that week as they had an ongoing case about the rape of a baby that would be very distressing to watch. If it was my daughter I would be making a complaint to the school.

[SometimesItRains]

In fact, my complaint would include the poor planning by the teacher. He either didn't think to check what case was being heard or he checked and deemed it acceptable to take a group of children too. Either way, his judgment was pretty bad.

[H1ghw4y61revisited]

I'm surprised the court let a bunch of kids sit in a trial like that. I would definitely think a few driving offences would have been better. I quite often have to leave my pupils out of sensitive cases and they've been through 4 years of law school by then. Maybe speak with the teacher and check the context in which them leaving would affect their marks, maybe as PP said it was more like you won't be able to answer procedural questions.

[Janey50]

I would question the teacher's judgement here,but to be honest,if your DD can't cope with hearing details of cases like this,then maybe a career in law is not the best choice for her.

[HaPPy8]

I agree this was inappropriate and am surprised the court allowed it. I would talk to the teacher about it.

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

YANBU. It wasn't appropriate and as PPs have pointed out there are lots of lawyers who will never have sat through a child sexual abuse case. There are numerous areas of law after all.
My other concern would be how triggering this could have been if one of the students had experienced abuse in their past. On that basis alone, I would be raising this as an issue. No way should a 16-yr-old be confronted with an abuse case with no warning. In RL, that would not happen. Lawyers don't randomly wander into court and then discover what the case is.

[Trifleorbust]

A-level students need to be treated in a much more adult fashion than younger students. It's not a nice topic but it is part of the reality of the subject she has chosen to study.

[Bluntness100]

I think I'd speak to her about some of the horrors of life and talk about coping strategies.

My daughter is in her second year of a law degree, she didn't do law at school, few law degree students do, but they have to review some quite horrific cases and criminal law is a first year module. Ok, she was two years older than uour daughter, but she wasn't upset and was able to review it objectively.

So I think maybe more insight was needed before picking law for A level, The A level exam itself is set nationally and she needs to review the cases to be able to do the exam. No two ways around it, they need to review and understand the cases set of she will not do well in her a level and she can't miss sections out. It's a fairly set curriculum.

[FV45]

I'm with you OP.
She is a child herself and only a few months into the Law A level.

I would have thought the first trip to court would be to become familiar with the buildings, the different rooms, the staff, the time tabling of hearings, security - all those procedures. NOT to listen to a vulnerable person in very difficult circumstances. And they absolutely should have been able to leave. Sadly that sort of trial might be close to the bone for some of the students.

[2kids2dogsnosense]

My other concern would be how triggering this could have been if one of the students had experienced abuse in their past

Really good point

[Trifleorbust]

Actually, no, I take that back. I thought you meant a mock trial but it was a real one. Hmm. The teacher can't have known what would be described and I think students should be 18 for this. I also think they should be able to make their own choice.

[Trifleorbust]

Nothing wrong with a trip to court in general though. I can't believe anyone would object to an educational trip and say the teacher was 'skiving' - it's an A-level Law class FGS, of course they should visit the courts.

[orangetree99]

Agree with Verbena. At 16 they are still classified as children themselves and covered by lots of child protection rules and regulations to protect them from being in situations and seeing things that are not appropriate. I would not have thought anyone under 18 should witness a trial like that. Also agree that doing Law A level doesn't mean they want a career in Law - at dds college they pick 4 in the first year and Law is popular because it's useful in life and business generally so some pick it is as an option.

[PilkoPumpPants]

If none of the class were warned what the case would be about then yanbu.
The teacher had no idea if any of his/her students have been a victim of sexual abuse either which absolutely terrible.

[Slightlyperturbedowlagain]

I think that was age-inappropriate at 16. When we got taken to view a court hearing the teacher spoke to the court personnel outside to check what it was vaguely about before we went in.

[LuckBeALadyHey]

Surely studying A-Level Law has nothing to do with a potential future career in working on child abuse cases?

I studied accounting and biology at that level, with no intention of being an accountant or working in anything to do with biology.

A friend is a barrister and I would be very surprised if she had ever had to hear the ins and outs of a child abuse case. It's not a 'general knowledge' type area of law .

All that being said, it sounds like the teacher was between a rock and a hard place. S/he probably has very limited opportunities to take the students out, and unless (and even if) you live in a big city there are probably not that many courts in session and open to the public at the 'right' times nearby.

I do think it was inappropriate though.

[KERALA1]

Most lawyers don't do criminal law so the "if she can't hack a child abuse case she can't be a lawyer" is nonsense.

I started off doing criminal law but quickly decided it wasn't for me.

[Topsy44]

I took A level law. It was a v long time ago but can't see why it was necessary for the students to watch what you described. I would be speaking to a teacher about this.

[Bluntness100]

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a real court case and so yes, agree, that was a bit much,

Kerala, everyone studies criminal law, it's part of the curriculum.

Op could the school not have known which trial was on that day?

[NCForThisThreadObviously]

I used to teach legal secretaries and went to court with them quite a few times. We were never allowed into that sort of trial - the court clerk would always tell us it was going to be distressing and would advise us which to see. You usually start with the Magistrates' Court since that's what you study first (on the A level syllabus, too) and then go on to the Crown Court. You need to see the very beginning of a trial to make sense of it, so all the swearing in of the jury etc. If the teacher had been in touch with the court prior to going, she could've made sure they went to see something appropriate. If the students are young, it's inevitable a trial like that would be very distressing.

And bollocks to it affecting their mark! How on earth could it do that?

[LuckBeALadyHey]

"but it is part of the reality of the subject she has chosen to study"

Yes, but it's a teeny tiny part.

I spent a day in court supporting a friend who had done something bloody stupid. My word it was boring. Case after case of people pleading guilty or not guilty to, mostly, relatively minor traffic offences (with a few bizarre crimes thrown in for good measure). Most cases that come before a court, even a criminal court, don't make the papers. Historic child abuse cases aren't exactly your average lawyer's bread and butter.

[JerryFerry]

I'd be very disappointed by this.

My daughter does forensics which includes trips to police stations and court houses, but they only sit in on "appropriate " hearings. The teacher should have researched options better.