Report on The Inner Temple Crewe Hall Residential Weekend May 2024
On 2–4 February 2024, a residential weekend focusing on vulnerable witnesses within the law took place at Crewe Hall, organised by Master Annie Richardson and Master Craig Hassall, although unfortunately the latter could not attend the weekend itself. This was the first residential weekend which used a new template for the order of the weekend. The template had been developed within The Inner Temple Qualifying Sessions Commitee to take notice of the students’ wishes for the focus of such weekends to be upon advocacy, with a greater flexibility within the timetable.
The weekend was well attended, and as ever, several members of the Inn, from the Judiciary and the Bar, gave up their precious free time to assist in the running of the weekend. The Chairman of the Qualifying Sessions Sub-Committee, Master Henrietta Hill, was present to cast her expert eye over matters, and her relaxed and friendly manner was very much appreciated by the students and the organisers!
The treatment of vulnerable witnesses within the law is a subject that encompasses many different legal disciplines, and although this was a weekend primarily focused on the criminal law, the same principles can be applied to the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses within the family jurisdiction, for example.
The treatment of vulnerable witnesses within the law is a subject that encompasses many different legal disciplines.
The Friday evening session began with an opportunity to meet within allotted groups, followed by an introduction to the weekend by Master Henrietta Hill, and then the keynote speech was given by Master Neil Clark, who is one of the lead members of the judiciary for the section 28 procedure (whereby certain vulnerable witnesses can be cross-examined in a pre-trial recording). In his usual entertaining and informative way, Master Clark not only touched upon the initial pilot schemes in various courts, including his in Leeds, but went on to explain the difficulties encountered within the national roll-out, and what the future holds. He went on to give a very personal account of his familial experiences of vulnerability and disability, which was extremely well received by the students.
Saturday morning began with the students practising their advocacy within the groups and getting to grips with their roles, which had been pre-allocated prior to the weekend. This was followed by a very interesting talk given by Alison Mullen, a Registered Intermediary. Her talk not only encompassed being an intermediary for vulnerable witnesses, but also attending upon vulnerable defendants in order to assist with their defence. There are relatively few intermediaries who are able to assist defendants, and therefore this part of the talk was particularly interesting. Alison spoke of her wealth of experience with a diverse group of witnesses, and showed how questions could be reframed to enable the particular difficulties of a witness to be managed, for example those on the autism spectrum, those with communication or speech difficulties and those with physical impairments. Her PowerPoint presentation enabled the students to see exactly how questions could be structured, and what her role was in guiding advocates to ask questions in the correct manner, which included their intonation and demeanour when speaking. The feedback from the students was encouraging, as few had any idea what an intermediary actually did and were able to learn how the courts have adapted to allow witnesses who would not otherwise have been able to gain access to criminal justice to do so.
The Saturday timetable allowed plenty of time for the students to practice their advocacy, both in their smaller groups and privately. The case study was an allegation of arson; this was specifically chosen to show that vulnerable witnesses are not purely found in cases involving sexual allegations and to minimise any adverse impact on the students. A neighbour’s house had been set alight, allegedly by the defendant, who lived in the house below. The victim of the arson was a single lady, vulnerable due to her physical health, which had worsened by the time of the trial, so much so that she had to give evidence via a live link from her hospital bed. A 12-year-old child had been alerted to the fire from her house across the road and, due to her age, her evidence would normally have been video recorded, including her cross-examination. Whilst of course this was not possible in the real sense, the students were able to see what would happen in such a situation, including a ground rules hearing to assist the advocates in tailoring their questions to suit such a young witness. Given a video recording of her ‘evidence-in-chief’ was not possible, the scenario included the fact that she did not like to see herself on camera and therefore Prosecution Counsel had to examine her in chief in the usual way.
The Saturday afternoon advocacy masterclass was an opportunity to see how things could be done in the worst possible way, as well as (hopefully!) the best. Master Neil Clark was the presiding Judge, trying to keep Prosecution Counsel – Master Jeremy Hill-Baker – and Defence Counsel – Master Caroline Goodwin – in check, a weighty task indeed. Master Annie Richardson was the unfortunate child witness who was subjected to the excoriating cross-examination of Master Goodwin (showing how NOT to cross examine) before she reverted to the correct way in which to examine a vulnerable witness. Hannah Smith, a group leader, was the injured party, confined to her hospital bed after the injuries she received during the alleged arson attack and subsequent health problems, and gave a very good performance, showing the students (as much as the restraints of the room allowed) how to give evidence via a live link. Imagination had to be engaged somewhat, but her recurring cough caused by the effects of the smoke inhalation was pure genius!
Water Bottles
Our beautiful 500ml (17oz) Inner Temple water bottle is made from 70% recycled materials and high grade steel by Mr Bamboo Cup. It keeps your beverage cold for 24 hours or hot for 12 hours, and is fully recyclable at the end of its ten year life. A tree is planted for each bottle that is manufactured. It's a perfect gift or accessory for every occasion.
The Saturday afternoon ethics sessions were done within the group, a departure from previous weekends, to allow for greater discussion. The students were faced with a variety of problems, all based on real scenarios, and were encouraged to talk about how these might be solved. It would appear that the more intimate and informal format was well received.
After another practice for the Sunday morning advocacy sessions, the students were able to ask questions in relation to pupillage from a panel consisting of Master Henrietta Hill, Master Joseph Hart, Hannah Smith (whose job at the Nursing and Midwifery Council meant that students heard from an employed barrister) and Master Oliver Lewis. All the panellists had had a very different route to the Bar and gave extremely pertinent and helpful pointers to the students in relation to making pupillage applications and being interviewed for pupillage. So enthusiastic were the questions that Master Hill had to bring the session to a close as dinner beckoned, and the session was overrunning! The students were assured that they could continue to ask questions to individuals over dinner.
Saturday evening was rounded off by another delicious meal and a superb and tricky quiz set by the ever-dependable Julia Armfield (although there were questions which allowed those of us who usually dread quizzes to answer). Master Peter Birkett showed us all how to be MC of a loud and exuberant crowd, truly demonstrating why he has consistently been a master of the courts in which he has appeared over the last several decades. The dining room at Crewe Hall is both cosy and large, allowing all those attending the weekend to mingle and socialise, which surely is another equally important function of a residential weekend. Master Goodwin’s dulcet tones could be heard echoing down the room as she ‘gently’ encouraged her team to ever greater glory. As part of the new format, those students who did not wish to participate in the quiz were able to spend quiet time in one of the smaller rooms, thus enabling them to still be part of the camaraderie of the weekend.
Sunday morning saw the students, slightly less bright-eyed and bushy-tailed than the previous morning, having more time to practise their advocacy with their group leader, before performing in front of the group Judge. As ever, feedback was given, with the focus on the positive and taking into account the varying degrees of advocacy experience. There was also an opportunity to chat informally about life at the Bar, and questions about pupillage and CVs were answered.
Sunday morning saw the students, slightly less bright-eyed and bushy-tailed than the previous morning, having more time to practise their advocacy with their group leader, before performing in front of the group Judge.
The weekend came to a close with a short farewell address before everyone enjoyed lunch.
Given that the weekend was the first of its kind under the new format, the feedback was eagerly awaited. The students appeared to appreciate the extra time to prepare for the advocacy sessions, and the opportunity to hear from a panel about their route to the Bar and their advice about pupillage. The atmosphere of the weekend was also welcomed. As is usual at these weekends, the opportunity to socialise with the Judiciary and the Bar, to ask questions within a less formal setting and to meet fellow students from other colleges’ course providers was much appreciated by all.
Master Annie Richardson
