The court room and the classroom are not that different

Blog post by Mel Holmes 

Having worked as a police officer, then as a solicitor, I’ve been going into court rooms for many years.  So, when I was required to attend court recently, I realised that having moved into teaching law, I had not been inside a court room for about 15 years.  Not a lot has changed in that time.

The other party failed to attend the court but were on the phone to their legal team.  After discussions about it being too late to serve me with the appropriate legal notice, my refusal to agree an adjournment, and a lack of technology available to have the defendant provide his evidence remotely, I was relieved that the case proceeded without too much debate and delays.  

To begin with, the physical appearance was similar to that of my old high school.  No fancy oak but instead a fairly empty bookshelf with what looked like a couple of out-of-date texts, but was otherwise empty. The judge sat facing us behind an overly large wooden desk, then the two barristers faced the judge with smaller desks, and I sat behind my barrister. Even the loud drilling just outside the window, felt familiar.
As is the norm, my barrister opened with the details of the claim, and then it was over to the defendant’s barrister. As I have been a witness many times before I was not worried about giving my evidence. I’ve always just told the truth, kept calm and polite no matter is said to me, and answer to the judge.  My case was a minor non-injury traffic claim, I was to quote the judge, “forensically cross-examined”, with the majority of 1 ½ hours spent asking me questions. In essence, it was my word against the other driver, and as you no doubt know, it is for me to prove, on a balance of probabilities. My own barrister barely spoke, given there was nobody to cross-examine, or points left to cover.  

What stood out for me was how much life experience is needed, to be a good lawyer.  I am not too sure if the defence barrister drove a car, and he certainly did not know his vehicle models as he called my car ‘large’, when in fact is a small hatchback.  He then switched to calling my car substantive. I am not sure what a substantive as opposed to a non-substantive car was, so we agreed it was ‘a car’. He then switched over to state that a van was unable to move or push a car over, asking me to agree with this statement. I’m no physicist but found that an odd statement and queried if he meant to make that statement. I found myself explaining a van can move a car, and that is what happened. 

I wondered what I could take from my day in court, that might help my students.  My advice is that if you want to be a lawyer, you really do need to go into the law courts and become comfortable and familiar with what is happening.  It is ‘law in action’, and it takes out that naturally intimidating feeling. Just think of the court room as another classroom, where you are observing and reflecting.  You can learn so much about what makes someone a good lawyer, and you soon see for yourself, it is far broader than just knowing the law. 

PS I won!

---

Mel Holmes

Mel Holmes, previously working as an inhouse solicitor, joined the Open University in 2000, as an Associate Lecturer on Access and Level 1 Law modules. She is currently a Lecturer and Student Experience Manager, roles which include bringing the student perspective to developing module/programme teaching and learning design.  As the first person in her family to attend university, she is particularly interested in how universities can best support all students to achieve their study goals. Mel is working on projects focused on developing study skill resources and support.