Indictments

Now I have found this an interesting thought. Admittedly, I find a lot of the course interesting, but in the depths of this 'slightly less than interesting' lesson, I struck gold in the interest stakes.

An Indictment is a document listing all of the offences that a scumbag criminal has carried out.

Scenario:
Coppers arrest a white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag for dangerous driving and find a silver candlestick in his trouser pocket. 'No, honest officer, I was just pleased to see you'

Back at the nick, a report comes in for a burglary. Plod hot foots it round to the crime scene and take a witness statement. Homeowner came home an hour ago and found a tooled up scumbag climbing out of the bathroom window. Describes him as white, 6'2 and dark hair.

Following a search of the premises, guess whats missing! No, go on, have a guess.

Did you say a silver candlestick? Oooooh, how did you know.

Homeowner attends an id parade. Doesn't pick the white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag. SOCO doesn't find any dabs on the window frame, or anywhere. Blasted white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag must have worn gloves.

Now, to the interesting bit, although to be honest, I think all the excitement has been spent on this scenario, the blues and twos and done and dusted, the tooled up white 6'2 dark haired scumbag didn't give the homeowner a kicking, nobody resisted arrest, no guns, and even more scary, no Police dogs. Police interview was exciting, lots of questions from good cop/bad cop returned with 'No comment'

So I have to make a list of offences that the white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag has committed.

Theft? How do I know? Crappy witness identification. Could have been anyone that is white, 6'2 and dark haired.

Handling? Well, yes, banged to rights, but is he the thieving white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag? Actually, did he know that the candlestick was stolen? I would look it up if I could be bothered but I suspect that lets him off that charge. Surely walking around in broad daylight with a candlestick in your pocket is quite normal? (OK, I looked it up for the sake of authenticity, and to prevent clever clogs spouting legislation at me. He has to know its stolen to count as handling)

Come on, come on, come on, says the Judge, list his offences properly on the Indictment or we will let him off, and pay him thousands because we falsely arrested him. What to do? Quickly, quickly, Theft or just handling, or nothing?

For now, until I get some suggestions, I will follow the usual procedure and do him for drug dealing, Public Order, and not putting his bins out on the correct day. He will not see the light of day while I am clearing the courts of white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbags.

Send him down.

Swizz

So what is the BVC all about then?

When I first found blogs, I was desperate to find out what the BVC was all about. I searched and searched and couldn't really find what I was looking for. I knew that everybody said 'Its not like the GDL, its different', but nowhere could I find what it was that made it different.

So, I started this blog with the intention of covering that, yet have been sidetracked, and generally just spout drivel and nonsense, so here goes for an attempt to explain what the course is like.

Lessons are divided into Criminal and Civil. Criminal essentially takes us through the route from meeting your client for the first time, through bail, the various courts, to hopefully being let off rather than convicted and locked up for life for a crime they didn't commit and would have been found innocent of, had their Barrister listened in class and known how to do their job properly.

So in a typical lesson, we have pre-reading to do before the lesson so we should know a little about what the lesson is for. Say we are doing Bail. We have been given a set of papers for a naughty person that has been bad, and been caught. We read the papers, and find reasons why he shouldn't be banged up until his trial comes along, but should be allowed back into society so that he can thieve and beat more people up.

You then stand up in front of the class and make your application. Explain how he has turned over a new leaf since coming out of prison for the 5th time, he has a new baby (From the course I think all villians have new babies) has a new job about to start soon, wasn't there, didn't do it, its a set up, honest guv.

Sit down and look to the rest of the class who are either giggling because they went before you and theirs was better, or are crapping themselves because they go next. Lecturer asks you how you think it went, you criticise your own performance, they then tell you it was actually quite good, or crap, depending on their mood. The rest of the class are invited to comment, and everyone just nods their heads and says 'Good'

In the first quarter of the course there have been no more than 5 cases to know about.

In Civil, we take a client from maybe a road traffic accident, or defective goods bought in a shop, through making an application to the Court, to writing a Particulars of Claim which is essentially their whole story about the unfortunate incident and why they want money from the other side. Then writing a defence, just in case your client is the villain that has sold defective goods, or run someone over.

I can't think of a single case we have had to know, but all the rules and procedures are in a bloody thick book with wafer thin paper. There are about 2500 pages, and then they give you volume 2! You could roll your own ciggies out of the paper.

So it is different from the GDL. Lectures are not 'you listen to me and make notes', it generally is more a discussion, and is all about procedure rather than law.

You need to know some law though to do well. Contract Law, Tort and Criminal really. Negligence, and breach of contract mainly. In criminal, you need to know what the elements of a crime are so that you can see if your client did commit the crime, or at least if you look it up in another Rizla type book you would understand the elements of the crime.

On the whole, I have found it all quite enjoyable and interesting.

One thing is for sure, it is not like the photo at the top of this post, but more like this one:

Swizz

My Dad. What a guy!

Having spent ages working on my 100 word persuasive argument, in steps my dad with the perfect solution.

You have to admire my dad. He only ever had one pair of shoes which had no soles when he was at school, and only ever had an orange and a penny for Christmas, had never seen bananas until he was 12, was evacuated in the war to a coal mine where he did 12 hour shifts, and was beaten black and blue every night by his big brother, yet he is the happiest person to ever walk the earth. His toothless grin brightens any room.

I know all that sounds a bit Monty Python, but I know its true, because he is my dad and would never fib to me.

During the war he was on a midget submarine with his mate, Chalky White, and they blew up the Bismark all on their own. He also captured Hitler, but had to let him go when he was given a new mission to go and find Churchills laptop which had been left on the train. He found Lord Lucan living in Wolverhampton. He taught Bobby Moore how to play football. He has even been to the moon, but isn't allowed to talk about it. He has done loads of things and is very brave and very very clever.

He taught me all the essential things in life too, like how to make a pair of socks last a week, how to drip gravy down my shirt, how to swear to good effect and how to impress the ladies.

Now, to my eternal thanks, he has solved the 100 word riddle. Emailed to me last night and given a higher priority to him than the Soduku he has been working on since last April, he is rightly proud of his work, and I am too.

So to anyone even thinking of applying to this set of Chambers, give up, go home, save your energy, Swiss Tony is there, first place, winner, top place, because his dad has saved his sorry arse yet again.

***** God Does have a sense of humour *****

Consider God’s creation and things he has given us.

Tsunamis, eathquakes, forest fires, and volcanoes, floods and disease.

Nothing funny about those is there? So would you say that God have no sense of humour?

Wait a minute, what about ducks. Have you ever seen a miserable duck? Never. Always a smile. Listen to their laugh, is it a bare ha ha ha, or a real hearty, quack quack quack.

And just when you think they may be rather cute after all they upturn and show you their arse.

Now believe me when I say that God had a sense of humour.


Thanks Dad, you are the bestest.

Swizz

100 words

Here is an interesting challenge. I have been practicing making Pupillage applications and one of the questionnaires I have asks me to persuade them to accept my point of view in 100 words.

I thought this would be a laugh. It doesn't have to be a serious topic, they do say realistic or otherwise.

I thought of:

Carrots DO help you to see in the dark.

Dogs CAN look up. (Watch Shaun of the Dead)

My mums cooking isn't THAT bad. Hmm, not sure I could convince anyone of that except my dad!

I then thought of a master stroke.

'It is impossible to convince anyone of anything in only 100 words.' My thinking being that at the end of my 100 words I would be able to say that if they are not convinced I must be right.

The trouble with this little exercise is that as soon as you lay out your proposition 25% of your word count has already been used up. There is precious little space left to convince anyone of anything

It then dawned on me what a clever task this is. It is extremely difficult to put into few words a convincing argument. Even saying 'That's just because it is' uses up 1/20th of the allowance.

If/when I get called in for an interview I will reveal what I really did, but I am impressed at the concept. It has had me thinking for a few days.

swizzle

Smash Hits

Last night while driving home in the dark, negotiating a roundabout, some berk in a 4x4 drove into the side of me. He was attempting to cut across two lanes of a roundabout without looking out of his windows. Berk.

We both pulled over to confront each other, and I said 'you were in the wrong lane if you wanted to turn off there' he said 'We will let the insurance sort it out.'

I know people don't like to admit fault, but I was in the right, honest!

While driving the last mile home I thought about it, and feel quite strongly that it is wrong that he probably has fully comprehensive insurance (just like me) so won't give a toss about his stupid negligent driving and will never learn a lesson, and will carry on driving like berk because it doesn't actually cost him anything.

So I thought about all those 'Particulars of Claim' that I have been writing over the last few months, and thinking about all the things he did wrong, and composing my own claim to sue his backside off. That will teach him a lesson and make him look next time.

But in the cold light of day, whats the point. I might even lose in court and have to pay his fees. Surely it is easiest to let the insurance deal with it and move on.

But it annoys me. OK, so my insurance doesn't cost me much, but his stupidity is being paid for by other people. He needs a right good slapping.

Berk

On the bright side, nobody was injured and I will at least get a new door on the car.

Lesson previously learned, DO NOT GO TO COURT ON A PRINCIPLE

Swizz

ps Whatever happened to 'Plastic Bertrand'?

Panic stations

It may just be me, but what a strange feeling it is to be all of a fluster and panicking about having so many things to do and so little time to do it in.

I appreciate that Bar Boy and Bar Maid, and like as not anyone that goes to BPP, spends most of their life in said panic so it seems normal, but this is a new one on me.

Four months into the course and it has all been reasonably laid back, feet up on the desk, playing solitaire on the pc instead of researching something on Lexis Nexis, sometimes it even being so slack that I don't bother getting out of bed.

In addition to my usual working day, I have homework. Probably a little more than usual, but the last month or so it has been minimal. Then an Opinion to write. I did half of it during Xmas, but still have a bit of research to do.

I have begun to realise the shortcomings of my 'plastic' GDL qualification and the lack of depth we went into in subjects. I end up knowing that there must be 'something' that applies in this situation, but buggered if I can find it. All my Uni books are spread across my desk but I still can't find what I am looking for.

I have then discovered FIVE pupillages that I should apply for before their January 30th deadlines. I haven't tried this before, so I have to invent all sorts of stuff to make me sound interesting. Its actually quite a challenge to write the first one, although they get easier as there is an element of cut and paste when you are doing a few together.

And then WHAM, bang, right between the eyes, PANIC STATIONS.

A Mock Legal Research project. Admittedly, it is along the lines of a subject I am familiar with, which thank the Lord it is because it has thrown me into all sorts of palpitations and sleepless nights. Its one thing to KNOW what the court will do, but quite another to actually pinpoint the bit of law that says WHY they will.

The fact that I am writing this post should be indication enough that I have finished it. What a relief. I feel great. I have been punching the air in triumph which is not a good idea when driving, but hey, I feel good.

Bar Boy and Bar Maid, you both have my undying respect. If you have been running around like the headless chicken I have been this week then I am in awe of you both. This week has been interesting, and I am happy to get my knickers in a twist once in a while, but not constantly. I need a chance to let my heartrate get back to a normal level and catch up on some sleep.

Swizzle

Hearsay revisited

After a lot of reading, head scratching and nibbling on a pen while wondering, I think I have Hearsay cracked. I admit that although I can now spot Hearsay from a distance, I can recognise it immediately, I can wax lyrical on it, I can entertain my friends with tales of Hearsay, I could write a 500 page text book on it, I am almost at the point that Hearsay is flowing through my finely tuned body.

I have read every book on the subject, I have spoken to academics, Judges, my Mum, I have watched DVD's on the subject, and it is no longer the mystery that it seemed.

One thing I just can't understand though, how did they ever get a hit record?