It has been a very busy two months – hence the combined post for months 3 and 4! Alongside regular pupillage life, these months have included the pupillage professional ethics exam which is discussed below.
T/W: Rape and sexual offences discussed below.
Murder trial
We are currently in week 3 of a lengthy and complicated murder trial at Woolwich Crown Court, which features three co-defendants charged on a joint enterprise basis who are all children. The case has been widely reported (to varying degrees of accuracy) by the press. We represent one of the co-defendants who has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
The facts are that all three co-defendants were on holiday in the Leysdown area. They were approached by the victim 2 days prior to the incident in an arcade – he appeared to take an interest in one of the co-defendants and gave them his number. A meeting with the victim was arranged 2 days later. The victim met one of the co-defendants along the seafront and the 2 other co-defendants followed. At some point during the walk, an assault commenced against the victim.
The victim is shown on a video recording to be hit with a glass bottle and chased along the seafront whilst one of the co-defendants shouted: ‘HE’S A PEDO, I AM ONLY 16’. The victim was continually chased until a point where he suddenly collapsed onto a rocky, wasteland area of the seafront. There is then some kicking and rocks thrown at the victim by one of the co-defendants. Bystanders arrived and performed CPR but to no avail.
There has been a substantial amount of evidence from consultant pathologists, including neuropathologists (those who specialise in the brain) and cardiopathologists (those who specialise in the heart) as to the cause of death. However, it still remains ultimately undetermined. The victim had previously had a heart attack and thus was at a higher risk of suffering a cardiac event. Further, the victim had fractured ribs 2-7 on the lefthand side of the body, one of which punctured his lung which likely led to traumatic pneumothorax – a build up of blood/air on top of the lung which prevents it from inflating with oxygen in the usual way.
The difficulty, and the interesting thing in this case, is that none of the individual parts of the assault themselves are evidently actions which in themselves would lead to death.
The trial is before High Court Judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb and has a number of special measures in place. Two out of the three co-defendants (including our co-defendant) have intermediaries. An intermediary is an independent, communication specialist appointed by the court to help a vulnerable witness or defendant understand questions and communicate answers effectively. The trial is also sitting reduced hours between 11am and 3:30pm, with regular breaks, to ensure that the defendants’ concentration remains as consistent as possible throughout.
I have had the opportunity to see multiple EICs (Examination-in-chief) and XXs (Cross-examination) of civilians, police officers, paramedics and expert witnesses of different disciplines. All of these have been conducted by silks, which has been great to see as all of the silks in our trial have very different styles and approaches to advocacy – a theme which fits in with everything I have observed in my pupillage so far. One thing I noted in particular is that it is often a bad look for the jury if you are ‘too adversarial’ in your cross-examination. You can often be more convincing, and get more out of the witness, if you are fair, build rapport slowly and then start building up momentum with your points having them on your side, rather than working against you. This obviously won’t work with every witness but still serves as a helpful reminder that being bullish is not always the answer.
It has also been interesting to see how a child copes with a trial. Even though the offence is an extremely serious one, and the criminal age of responsibility is just 10 years old in England and Wales, they are still a child. Their perception of the world is so different to that of an adult, their brains are far less developed (particularly their prefrontal cortex, the decision making bit) and the way they are able to deal with the pressures of a criminal trial are by the very same token, different. I will certainly be taking this on board when dealing with children in the criminal justice system going forward and will remember that at the end of the day, they are just children and you have to make adjustments for that in your conferences and in their trials.
Sentence in Misconduct in Public Office
In my previous post, I discussed a misconduct in public office trial which was prosecuted by my supervisor. In January, the prison officer to which those proceedings related was sentenced by HHJ Christopher Hehir. This case was also covered widely by the press. The sentence was ultimately one of 3 and a half years imprisonment.
It was interesting for two reasons. Firstly, there are no sentencing guidelines for misconduct in public office which made it a difficult sentencing exercise for the learned Judge to balance. Secondly, it will have been the first case I have seen from start to finish, i.e., from the start of trial until a sentence has been passed, which gives you a certain level of investment in the result and a perspective on whether, as a whole, justice has been done.
Other observed work
I also observed a week-long rape trial where a man was alleged to have raped his stepdaughter, who was under 16 at the time, on multiple occasions in multiple locations. Once again, an interesting element to this case was a lie told by the Complainant in one of her pre-recorded police interviews. She told the police that she had contracted Chlamydia from the Defendant and that she was a virgin when he raped her so she must have contracted it from him. Further disclosure and examination of the defendant’s phone revealed that the Complainant was having penetrative sex, without contraception, with a number of individuals who were not the Defendant during the indictment period. Additionally, the Defendant had tested negative for Chlamydia before the indictment period and his sexual partner at the time, tested negative for Chlamydia after the indictment period.
All of the above evidence about the Complaint’s sexual history had to be adduced via an application under s. 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which tightly controls the admissibility of such evidence – a new piece of law for me to remember!
The evidence in the trial only lasted 2 days; it was mostly just oral evidence from the Complainant and the Defendant. Despite this, the jury was out for 4 days in deliberation. The majority direction was given on trial day 4, i.e., the learned Judge would accept a verdict on at which at least 10 of the jurors agree on. A further Watson direction was given on day 5, i.e., you must continue your deliberations but if you cannot reach a verdict, inform the learned Judge. On day 6, the jury could still not reach a verdict and were hung – they couldn’t reach a verdict, guilty or not guilty, on which at least 10 of them agreed. They were therefore discharged and a re-trial was fixed for next year. It is ‘borderline’ cases like this, where at least 10 of 12 people can’t agree one way or the other, that really enforce the importance of the jury in our criminal justice system. It simply has to be a matter for 12 of your peers, and not for 1 who is likely not.
Under s. 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the XX of the Complainant was pre-recorded in advance of the trial and played to the jury in video format. All of the XX questions are prepared in writing and often provided to the Complainant in advance. A ground rules hearing is held to review the questions prior to any s. 28 recording taking place. It was both interesting and useful to observe how questions are asked to vulnerable witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, as well as how the court procedures, such as s. 28 cross examination, actually work in practice.
Written work for Chambers
I have completed further sets of prosecution trial documents for members of Chambers, which I explained in my month 2 blog post. In addition to this, I had the opportunity to prepare a skeleton argument on the admissibility of expert psychological evidence in relation to intention to cause a really serious injury. The evidence in question related to the defendant’s ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) and how this might affect their consequential thinking and ability to predict risk.
It was a really intriguing piece of legal research for me, as I am interested in psychology (and all things science/medicine) in terms of its applicability in law. I started from the case of R v Turner [1975] Q.B. 834, which outlines the starting point for the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in general and found helpful guidance on ASD specifically from R v PS [2021] EWCA Crim 1777, R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385, R v Gordon [2018] EWCA Crim 1555 and R v Hassan [2018] EWCA Crim 498.
The ultimate conclusion I reached was that there is no categorical rule excluding evidence of ASD from consideration of criminal intent. However, the consistent approach of the Court of Appeal appears to be that admissibility turns on relevance to a live issue in the case, which is assessed by reference to the specific facts before the learned judge and the way the defence case is run. It seemed to me to be particularly relevant to cases of joint enterprise murder, where the defendant wasn’t directly involved in the physical offending.
Professional Ethics Exam
Pupil barristers this month have also had the added bonus of a professional ethics exam, consisting of 12 short essay style questions covering a range of different ethical scenarios to be answered in 3 hours. The syllabus of examinable material is surprisingly large, covering a substantial amount of the guidance to the BSB Handbook of which you do not have the luxury of access to in the exam. It is a big jump from the professional ethics multiple choice exam you take on the Bar Course. It is also an exam that you need to pass in order to have your pupillage signed off. If you fail, you have one attempt to retake it free of charge but should you need a further re-sit, the cost is an eyewatering £832; if that is not motivation to get it passed first try, I don’t know what is!
As a result of the above, at every free moment I have been revising the syllabus for ethics and getting as many practice questions done as possible. This is a surprisingly large challenge on top of pupillage itself. My fingers are very much crossed for the results in 8 weeks’ time.
Conclusion
Overall, months three and four of pupillage have been intense, challenging, and incredibly rewarding. From observing complex murder and sexual offence trials to grappling with difficult evidential and procedural issues involving vulnerable defendants and witnesses, these experiences have reinforced both the seriousness of criminal practice and the responsibility it carries. Seeing how the law operates in cases at the sharpest end of the criminal justice system—particularly where children are involved—has deepened my understanding of advocacy, fairness, and the importance of careful, humane decision‑making. Alongside this, the opportunity to undertake substantial written work has allowed me to engage more critically with the law beyond the courtroom. As demanding as these months have been, they have been invaluable in shaping how I approach criminal practice going forward.
LouisAndTheLaw 
Leave a comment