Being a final year law student means trying to cram in any last-minute work experience I possibly can to further my Bar application. Last week I completed a mini pupillage at 36 Group, a set of chambers based primarily in London specialising in several areas of law from criminal, commercial to public and human rights. I cannot stress the importance of mini pupillages they can either spark a new interest in a different area of law you once dismissed or confirm your choice. I am going to walk you through my experience day by day shadowing a criminal barrister in the Lincoln Crown Court. It was incredibly eye-opening as it was my first time observing a trial from the start, from the jury being sworn in, to the end, with the defendant being sentenced. 

Day 1

Monday by far was the most here, there and everywhere. The first case concerned a series of sexual offences and was postponed until the 31st. The defendant's bail was renewed based upon conditions and if those conditions were not adhered to then there would be a warrant for their arrest. The second case involved over 20 defendants regarding a range of offences, for instance, the use of threating words or behaviour with intent, driving offences, assault, theft and drug possession. Due to the number of defendants involved they were batched into groups. 2/3 defendants we were concerned with were found guilty with their privileges of bail questioned. Further guidance was given to the jury by the judge in reaching a majority verdict of 10 to 2 or 11 to 1 regarding the plea of the last defendant. The final case formed the majority of my mini pupillage. It was the start of a new trial, the defendant was indicted for sexual assault, damage to property, action perverting the course of justice, possession of a bladed weapon and false imprisonment, totaling to 9 counts. The defendant was sworn in first with the use of an interpreter and made their way to the dock located at the far end of the courtroom. 15 jurors then made their way into the courtroom, 12 names were read out to form the jury and were sworn in by the usher. These 12 members of society would ultimately decide the fate of the defendant based on the evidence provided by the prosecution and defence. 

Day 2 

The jury were informed of their role within the trial by the judge who also went on to explain his role. The defendant pleaded guilty to 3/9 counts the criminal damage to property, possession of amphetamines and ABH. The prosecution began with an opening statement summarising the facts of the case and provided photographic evidence to the jurors. The first witness was called by the prosecution, sworn in and asked about the defendant's behaviour. A recount of events was given to the jury with an emphasis on the offences committed by the defendant. The defence then began to cross-examine the first witness and drew upon the witnesses failure to notify any neighbours of the alleged assault. The witness was accused of exaggerating the events that transpired on the night in question, along with no mention of the sexual offence until several witness statements later as well as being intoxicated thus having a detrimental effect on her recall. The prosecution then had some further questions regarding the first witness statement and asked the first witness to read out parts of their statement. Towards the end, the judge emphasised the importance of the tape recording as being 'irrefutable evidence' concerning the phone call made by the defendant from the prison to the first witness allegedly asking to drop the charges in return for money thus perverting the course of justice. 

Day 3 

A series of agreed facts were presented to the judge and jury by the prosecution and the defence. However, several inconsistencies were highlighted for instance the room the first witness was in. The witness stand was prepared for the second witness who wanted to give her evidence via a screen and was sworn in. Again, the prosecution began by questioning the second witness about their whereabouts on the night in question. The second witness admitted to seeing the first witness leave, arrive taking some belongings and then leaving her property. The defence questioned the second witness about their daily routine and established that the majority of the evidence given was based on information between the witnesses. The damage to the mobile phone of the first witness was also questioned because the second witness recalls the first witness still having possession of their phone despite the first witness alleging it had been 'broken and taken' by the defendant. A third witness was called, whether the first witness had disclosed to the third witness relating to the sexual offence was questioned. The defence narrowed in on the fact that the third witness was unsure whether the defendant touched or 'tried to touch' the first witness. The prosecution submitted more evidence via agreed facts like the phone call from the second witness to the police and that when the defendant was arrested he was intoxicated and in possession of a bladed article in a public place. The fourth witness was a Detective constable officer in the case who recently became the officer in the case. The prosecution questioned the officer about the phone call and duration of how long tape recordings are kept for, which was 90 days unless a request had been made to retain them for a longer period. The recorded interview between the defendant and a police officer was read out to the jury. The defence established the defendant declining any legal representation during the interview. Reasonable lines of inquiry and why they were not pursued were questioned, ultimately reduced down to negligence. Previous convictions of the defendant were also outlined regarding battery and possession of a Class B drug. The defence then informed the judge that the defendant would not be giving evidence. The jury retired allowing the law to be discussed between the advocates. Whether or not the defendant had a 'good reason' for carrying one of the bladed articles in public was questioned and if sentimental value constituted a 'good reason'? Upon the return of the jury, the judge went through both the prosecution and the defence cases along with the law related to the counts. The judge emphasised that the burden rests on the defendant to prove 'good reason' and the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. 

Day 4 

The prosecution, in their closing speech, clarified that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and so the jurors must be sure that the defendant is guilty. Despite the defendant not giving evidence, they have a right to choose whether or not to give evidence and that choice is not to disregard to discredit the evidence given prior. The prosecution went through a number of undisputed facts and established the fact that sentimental value does not form a 'good reason' for carrying the knife in a public place. The defence began with pointing to the defendant and explaining that they had no right to grab the first witness by the neck, to cause damage to a window and possessing illegal drugs. The defendant's guilty plea to 3/9 counts was mentioned again along with the defendant being able to exercise his 'right' of choosing not to give evidence. The high standard of proof was reiterated to the jury along with the affirmation they took commencing the first day of the trial. Attention was drawn to false claims, exaggeration and discredited information on the first witness's part. The defence constantly asked the jury whether the evidence was credible, reliable and if they were absolutely sure? The defence directed the jury to find the defendant not guilty. The jury is asked to deliberate and return once they have reached a verdict. The jury found the defendant guilty of only 1/6 counts. The judge then asked the prosecution to go through the guidelines comprising of two main parts harm and culpability. The guidelines relating to assault were read out along with factors reducing the seriousness. The defendant being under the influence of alcohol was an aggravating factor. The defendant's history of violence was mentioned along with where the offences took place, in the witnesses' home specifically their bedroom, was a serious factor. The defendant was then told to stand up as the judge began his sentencing. The defendant was sentenced to Category 1 of ABH of 3 months reduced to 2 months along with 9 months consecutive to the 3 months for carrying a bladed article totalling to 11 months of imprisonment with 1/2 being served in custody and the remainder under supervision. An order of forfeiture and destruction of both the bladed articles was ordered along with a restraining order against contacting the first and second witnesses for a period of two years.