February 06, 2006

Round 2 of Internal Mooting Competition

Congratulations to everyone who has made it through to Round 2 of the competition! The moots have been of a consistently high quality and all the judges for the first round have given very positive feedback on participants.

The second round will be held in Week 7 and you should receive the time/date of your moot within the next couple of days. If you have any problem with the time allotted, please let Jay know immediately so we can consider other options. Last minute changes may result in your opponents being given an automatic bye to Round 3.

If you do not receive your time in the next few days please contact Jay or myself.

Good luck!


January 18, 2006

Submissions and Clarifications

Submissions for Round 1 are due on Friday January 20, 2006.

Points to remember:

  • You are only required to submit your skeletons for your disclosure.
  • Remember that the copies you submit are what will be given to the Judges, so please ensure that you make them to the highest standard possible (and keep them to one page if possible).
  • Refer to the Mooting Guide available on the Mooting page on the Law Society website at: www.warwicklawsociety.com and please pay special attention to the sample skeleton provided.
  • Also look through the rules given below for all the relevant information. Reminder that each advocate may use only four (4) authorities. This means that each team of two may use eight authorities.
  • Please ensure that you put the names of both team members on the skeleton!

On Friday the 20th there will be two boxes in the Law School Common Room, one labelled for Mooting Officers and one for Teams. Please clearly mark the skeleton submitted for your opponents with their names (and your skeleton should already have your names on it) and place one copy of the skeleton in each box. We will collect all the skeletons by 5pm.

Clarifications

1) Any person who is a student at the University of Warwick may participate in the Internal Competition. The rules have been modified to reflect this.

2) Your exact date and time for the Competition will be mailed out as soon as possible. The moots will take place on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of Week 4.

3) There will be a reception hosted by the Law Society on Wednesday evening for all students, especially those participating in mooting. There will be four lawyers from Herbert Smith present at the reception and this will be a great opportunity for you to network as well as learn more about mooting.

4) Remember that this problem question will also be used for the second round, so persevere and don't be daunted by the moots. You will all undoubtedly do very well!


January 15, 2006

University of Warwick Internal Mooting Competition Rules 2005–6

Competition Entry

1) The competition is open to all undergraduate and post-graduate students studying at the University of Warwick.

2) Competitors must sign up in pairs as a team or individually. Those who sign up individually will be assigned a partner by the Mooting Officers.

3) Advocates must provide an e-mail and/or telephone contact for the Mooting Officers.

4) Advocates must be aware that partaking in a moot will consume time and effort. Please only enter if you are sure that you will take part in order to avoid problems of last minute withdrawals.

Timetabling and preparation

5) The moot problem will be handed out to the participating teams at least seven days before the moot. Moots will take place on assigned dates with a minimum of seven days notice.

6) The moot problem will be decided at the organisersí discretion, and will involve any of the following areas of law: contract, tort, criminal, property, public and public international.

7) One moot problem will be selected for use in both Round 1 and in Round 2. Similarly, one moot problem will be selected for use in both Rounds 3 and 4.

8) Participants in the Internal Mooting Competition shall be assigned the position of Appellant or Respondent by the organisers. The organisers may request participants to argue the moot from the opposite position in case there is a scheduling problem. The organisers will only do so with at least seven days notice.

9) Advice regarding the specific problem may be sought from any source other than the organisers or judges.

10) The facts of the moot as set out in the problem are not subject to dispute.

Disclosure

11) Each advocate may cite no more than four cases during the moot. This does not include statutes, texts, articles or cases cited by the opposing team nor does it include any statutes, cases or articles cited in the moot problem question. Advocates may also refer to statutes and/or articles without these being included in the limits of four cases. Referring to a case or other legal literature not cited is only permissible when answering a Judge's question. Any other use shall be considered a negative factor by the Judge.

12) All cases, statutes, texts or articles ('Authorities') must be disclosed to the opposing team and the Mooting Officers, by placing skeletons in the relevant Law School Common Room pigeon holes, at least 48 hours before the moot. This must be confirmed by email to both the Mooting Officers at j.jagasia@warwick.ac.uk and opposing counsel at the email address provided. Failure to do so shall, at the discretion of the opposing counsel, result in the team at fault only being able to refer to cases cited by the opposing team.

13) Each team must produce a skeleton argument outlining the main propositions and submissions in support of their case. The skeleton must be no longer than one side of A4 paper for each team and must be exchanged at least 48 hours before the moot in a similar manner as the disclosure form. Failure to comply with either requirement shall be considered a negative factor by the judge.

14) No advocate or team may concede a point of law unless both members of the opposing team have given their written consent. Conceding without such consent will result in the moot being automatically awarded to the other team.

15) Advocates should put together copies of their authorities, including all cases, articles, statutes and texts, into a bundle for submission to the Judge. Advocates are not required to produce such bundles for their opponents in Rounds 1 and 2 of the Internal Competition. They will however, be required to do so for all subsequent rounds. Advocates bear the burden of examining the skeletons submitted by their opponents in the first two rounds and putting together any authorities they plan to refute or address in the moot.

Moot Formalities

16) The dress code for the internal competition is formal and mooters are required to wear suits when participating in a moot.

17) Mooters are expected to be punctual and arrive at the designated location at least five minutes prior to their allotted time.

18) The order in which the advocates are to speak shall be as follows: Lead Appellant; Junior Appellant; Lead Respondent; Junior Respondent.

19) Each lead counsel shall be permitted to speak for no longer than 10 minutes. Each junior counsel shall be permitted to speak for no longer than 7 minutes. This will not include time spent introducing the advocates, summarising the facts and any judicial interventions. These times will be increased to 15 minutes and 10 minutes in the final of the competition.

20) There will be a right of reply for the appellants lasting no longer than 3 minutes.

21) Time shall be kept by a clerk, who may also act as Judge, and the advocates shall be informed in some non verbal manner (e.g. holding up cards/ fingers) when they have three minutes remaining, one minute remaining and when their maximum time has expired.

22) Advocates shall be allowed to exceed the maximum time, but it shall be considered a negative factor by the Judge.

23) Falling considerably short of an allocated maximum time shall be considered a negative factor by the judge.

24) Any team unable to compete within the dates set out will forfeit their round to their opposing team, unless both teams agree by email on an alternative date which is then confirmed by the organisers. The organisersí confirmation is necessary and teams must contact Jay Jagasia at j.jagasia@warwick.ac.uk if they are unable to compete at the alloted time.

25) In the Internal Competition 2005–6, the three quarterfinal (Round 4) winners will automatically earn a position in the semi-finals. The final semi-final position will be awarded to the losing quarterfinal team that has the highest score. The Mooting Officers retain the right to determine which team proceeds to the semi-final in the case of a tie.

Judges and judgment

26) Each moot shall be judged by between one and three Judges. Where the moot is judged by two judges, one judge shall be given a casting vote to be used in the event of disagreement. The decision as to which judge has the casting vote shall be made prior to the start of the moot. Where the moot is judged by three judges the judgment shall be that of the majority.

27) The Judge will be a Mooting Officer, qualified barrister, solicitor, judge or law lecturer.

28) The Judge may ask any advocate any question at any point during the moot.

29) After all the speeches have been given the Judge shall adjudicate firstly, as to which team has won the point of law, and secondly as to which team has won the moot. The judgment is final unless one team alleges an infringement of these rules, when the matter should be referred to the organisers.

30) In reaching a decision as to which team has won the moot, the Judge shall take into account, in particular, the following:

i) The Court room manner and etiquette of each mooter;
ii) The presentation and clarity of each mooter's speech, including adherence to the time limits;
iii) The use made by each mooter of each authority or other literature cited as well as the overall presentation and preparation of authorities including bundles and skeletons; and
iv) The ability of each mooter to deal with judicial interventions.

Amendments

31) The organisers have absolute discretion to amend any of these rules and deal with questions of interpretation. All teams shall be informed of any amendments and interpretations.

32) The mooting guide available on the University of Warwick Law Society webpage will supplement but not replace the rules contained herein.

33) The competition organisers are the Mooting Officers for the University of Warwick Law Society. Any queries should be addressed to Jay Jagasia at j.jagasia@warwick.ac.uk. ac.uk.


December 28, 2005

First round draw and teams

Appellants (Devagne)

  1. Thea Bachmayer and Christopher Marks

  2. Malvika Kapila and Smita Wahi

  3. Clement Au and Jenny Law

  4. Alexander de Berniere and Nura Ali

  5. Jason Chiang and Omina Leung

  6. Gail Owen and Sam White

  7. Saara Idelbi and Charlotte Teece

  8. Martin Byers and Jennifer Agyekum

  9. Ella Curnow and Carly Beckerman

  10. Mitchell Oshodi and George Owuor

  11. Rubin Mukkam and Tasneem Sharafally

  12. Kasim Hussain and Paul Hill

  13. Felix Fiebinger and Karoline Nader

  14. Sapna Modi and Pamela Freeland

  15. Laura Metcalf and Stephanie Fitzpatrick

  16. Baris Oztoprak and Murad Pashayev

  17. Sarah Rogers and Jane Randell

  18. Vincent Chen and Dzama Okpoti

  19. A. Panto and Alex Nieora

  20. Safeea Shafiq and Basariah Gadri

  21. Nathalie Ashkar and Maria Wall

  22. Samantha Goh and Karen Lam

Respondents (Crown)

  1. Anne Marie Lobo and Anna Third

  2. Mike Trevelyanand Alex Rossiter

  3. Matt McDermott and John Williams

  4. Suzie Mcqueen and Deepti Shriram

  5. Marc Whatmuff and Adam Tanner

  6. Elizabeth Adan-Peart and Sarah Aplerku

  7. Alex Baker and Holly Sloan

  8. Charlie Rosier and Vicky Young

  9. Chloe Westerman and Anna Weston

  10. David Ezekiel and Shivani Kabra

  11. Elena Zafirova and William Fong

  12. Lisa Wheelton andSeb Sayer

  13. Anna Tkaczynska and Clare Tindale

  14. Bernard Georgii and Lucas Bento

  15. Victoria Callicott and Tom Stanford

  16. Bindya Thakrar and Jodie Hemming

  17. P. Khilji and Sonia Chang

  18. Sherwin Lin and Anna Stubley

  19. Anita Ng and Hayley Knight

  20. Anamika Bagchi and Marianne Tee

  21. Marc Speight and Catherine Hollins

  22. Katerina Berou and Sophie Ogilvie

Problem Question Rounds 1 and 2

This problem question will be used for both Rounds 1 and 2.

In The House of Lords

R v Devagne

Deborah Devagne, aged 12, had been suffering from an inoperable malignant brain tumour for 6 months. Although she was receiving significant amounts of medication to help with her pain, she was still, in the terminal stages of her life, suffering considerably. All other curative treatments had ceased and she was being nursed at home by her parents.

Following her prolonged illness, Daniel Devagne, Deborah's father, felt that neither he nor his daughter could cope any longer with her pain and suffering, and he suffocated her with a pillow.

Devagne was charged with murder, and at his trial pleaded necessity as a defence to the charge. Jumble J. held that, if necessity was recognised as a defence to murder, which in itself was debatable, the approach to its requirements, as set out in A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000] 4 All ER 961, should be entirely objective. He declined to distinguish A (Children) and consequently adopt the modified objective test propounded by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Latimer 2001 W.C.B. (2d) 279.

On the question of the mens rea for murder, the trial judge concluded that the test of foresight of virtual certainty adopted in A (Children) was correct, and that a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result.

Devagne was found guilty of murder and unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed with the trial judge on both points.
Devagne now appeals to the House of Lords; The questions certified by the Court of Appeal which gave permission to appeal to the House of Lords are:

  1. Is the defence of Necessity available outside the particular circumstances that arose in A (Children), and, if so, do the three requirements for the defence as set out in A (Children) leave room for the jury to take into account the defendant's reasonable belief, or are they purely objective?
  2. Is the test of foresight of virtual certainty as interpreted in A (Children) consistent with the earlier House of Lords decision in R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103, which held that where a consequence is foreseen as 'virtually certain', the jury may (not must) find that the defendant had the necessary intention?

ESU 2001-2002


November 25, 2005

Internal Competition timings and problem

Thanks to everyone who has signed up for mooting and clerking. We will be organising the schedule and will send out emails to everyone during the christmas break, along with the problem question. Please check your email accounts over christmas and remember to keep your Athens password handy so you can use Westlaw to research!

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact Jay.


Internal Competition scheduled for Term 2, Week 3

The Warwick University Internal Mooting Competition is scheduled for Week 3 of Term 2. The moots will take place on Thursday the 20th of January (or possible on Friday the 21st, we will confirm this). We cannot be flexible in this because we are getting external judges to moot. Please ensure that you will be able to moot on these days, the date will be confirmed over christmas break.

October 2019

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  |
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         

Search this blog

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • My partner's name should be spelt as Omina rather than Omwa… kindly make the relevant changes :) by Jason Chiang on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX