@GreenUp
Can anyone explain how the team (Peter Daly solicitor, Anya Palmer barrister, Ben Cooper QC) would work on this.
1|) Do they all do research and contribute to the bundle or is it just the solicitor or the barristers?
-
Who decides tactical approach?
-
Are Peter and Anya watching live so that they can give BC pointers during the break or is BC in charge of everything?
-
Would the team consider how the judge/tribunal members might respond to points based on who is making them? Eg. Like another poster above I also think that BC can get away with saying stuff like "male bodies" because he is a man whereas AP would get less leeway to say this kind of thing because she is a woman - we see this socially all the time - that women are punished for expressing views that men can get away with.
I know court is supposed to be rational and logical but do lawyers give consideration to social prejudice when they are planning who will argue the points or would that have no bearing?
Based on my experience as a client instructing sols on civil cases, it generally works like this.
I have a case I either need to defend or issue against another party. My job is to gather as much evidence as I can in preparation for either defending or suing the opposition. I send my instructions, my file, to sols & they review & give an initial summary, requests for various items they identify as required, and will usually file a defence or deal with a defence submitted by opposing side.
You go through various procedures (witness exchange, timetable of process, any orders for disclosure etc), and most of the time if there's a hearing, the sols will instruct a barrister to speak on my/our behalf. The barrister when they get instructions, will usually respond with their recommendations, often citing case law, and then I/we respond with instructions- if we agree, if we want another tactic, if we disagree etc.
The earliest involvement of counsel is usually to 'test' the evidence of the person involved (keeping specifics vague so as to not 'out' myself) by taking them through the evidence, and once that's done, they advise what they think the prospects of success are. A good witness, supporting evidence, and a poor response/failure to disclose from opposite side can give a good % of the likelihood of success.
On the day, it often comes down to nerves/presentation/quality of cross examination & the mood of the judge too. It's very unpredictable & I've known some weak cases win & some strong cases fall apart.
In this case, Maya's QC has an excellent understanding of the issues, of the timeline of events, of the inconsistencies in the various statements, good support via anya & Peter & an opposition who are struggling because they appear to be arse covering retrospectively, and their decisions have been based on frankly piss poor evidence & hyperbolic reactions to Maya's views.
Again, IANAL, and only ever see the paper file & rarely get to sit in court to witness things. It's quite exiting to see this in real time & watch someone clearly on top of his brief with laser sharp forensic skills when cross examining, and being able to draw out the weaknesses, the inconsistencies, the 'untruths' & the shifty evasiveness of witnesses trying desperately to stick to the 'manifestation of belief' position retrospectively. And convincing no one.