You are quite right that effective cross examination requires meticulous preparation. As a rule of thumb I used to reckon 3 hours preparation for 1 hour's cross examination. Your examples are good ones of short, clear, and effective questions, but, had Jason Beer not been counsel to the Inquiry and duty bound to take a neutral and more inquisitorial line, they would not have been open questions. You are correct to say that he is laying the evidential basis for the Report at the end of the Inquiry - but his role is inquisitorial not adversarial. We may hear more of the latter in the third day of Ms Vennel's evidence.
Joshua, so many of today’s — and tomorrow’s — advocates would benefit from your short, clear and insightful real-life lesson on effective cross-examination.
Also, you demonstrated another important advocacy lesson: facts persuade, conclusions do not. You used facts effectively to make your points.
It would be great to see wider dissemination of your advocacy lesson!
I am sure many of us were glued to our mobiles and televisions while Vennells gave her evidence. Excellent summary by the way Joshua. For what it is worth, here are my diary notes from last night. I am sure others have the same take on it:
Wednesday 22 May 2024 Election announced
The government is facing probably two of the worst scandals ever - both with the common ingredients of deception, cover-ups, lying, and general negligence, and both causing untold suffering and even death to numerous innocent people.
What better way to take the uncomfortable stories away from the limelight than announce an election? The effect was instant. Despite a day of the Post Office Horizon enquiry with Paula Vennells in the hot seat making a feeble attempt to imitate Manuel in Fawlty Towers - “I know nothing” - her testimony was swept from headlines to “In other news” with barely a mention of the blood scandal. Very effective media manipulation!
1. I agree with Joshua: preparation, preparation, preparation, together with the discipline to keep his cool in the face of what I for one viewed as Paula Vennells’ incredible claims of ignorance. I doubt that when seeking this remunerative and high profile post as Chief Executive Officer she had majored before the selection panel upon her inability to keep her finger on the pulse of all the many facets of POL’s activities.In preparation for her appearance before the Select Committee, we might be tempted to infer from some disclosed material that she had fully appreciated the key issue of subpostpersons’ individual accounts having been secure from any -shall we say?- tampering by Fu-Jitsu personnel. Had she not sought confirmation of that from POL personnel, rather than having asked out of any genuine spirit of inquiry? I merely ask the question.
2. The audience of those wronged-I agree- did themselves much credit and displayed so much dignity. It strikes me that that was and as we can hope will remain the case at least in part by reason of the deft and-wherever necessary- assertive chairmanship of Sir Wyn.
3. I remain seriously troubled by the draft legislation especially now it is so in danger of being whisked precipitately through Parliament. I still very much fear that in terms of wide ranging miscarriages of justice there may be “another bus along in a minute (or buses)”. What price the rule of law and the separation of the powers then?
4. I can scarcely resist wondering “aloud” who on earth had sent Rishi Sunak out in the rain without so much as an umbrella.
I have been dipping in and out of the inquiry in recent weeks. I, too, have been impressed by Jason Beer's mastery of such a complex case & his polite manner. He is the author of the standard work on public inquiries. Vennells demolished indeed
You are quite right that effective cross examination requires meticulous preparation. As a rule of thumb I used to reckon 3 hours preparation for 1 hour's cross examination. Your examples are good ones of short, clear, and effective questions, but, had Jason Beer not been counsel to the Inquiry and duty bound to take a neutral and more inquisitorial line, they would not have been open questions. You are correct to say that he is laying the evidential basis for the Report at the end of the Inquiry - but his role is inquisitorial not adversarial. We may hear more of the latter in the third day of Ms Vennel's evidence.
Somebody, somewhere, will complain about this poor woman being bullied by a man.
You read it here first.
Joshua, so many of today’s — and tomorrow’s — advocates would benefit from your short, clear and insightful real-life lesson on effective cross-examination.
Also, you demonstrated another important advocacy lesson: facts persuade, conclusions do not. You used facts effectively to make your points.
It would be great to see wider dissemination of your advocacy lesson!
Thank you! This is a public post so feel free to share.
I am sure many of us were glued to our mobiles and televisions while Vennells gave her evidence. Excellent summary by the way Joshua. For what it is worth, here are my diary notes from last night. I am sure others have the same take on it:
Wednesday 22 May 2024 Election announced
The government is facing probably two of the worst scandals ever - both with the common ingredients of deception, cover-ups, lying, and general negligence, and both causing untold suffering and even death to numerous innocent people.
What better way to take the uncomfortable stories away from the limelight than announce an election? The effect was instant. Despite a day of the Post Office Horizon enquiry with Paula Vennells in the hot seat making a feeble attempt to imitate Manuel in Fawlty Towers - “I know nothing” - her testimony was swept from headlines to “In other news” with barely a mention of the blood scandal. Very effective media manipulation!
“… Before long, artificial intelligence will monitor a witness’s answers in real time and present counsel with the killer document”
It’ll be lucky if it’s able to accurately transcribe the answers in real time… it isn’t capable of *understanding* in any meaningful way🤷🫣
1. I agree with Joshua: preparation, preparation, preparation, together with the discipline to keep his cool in the face of what I for one viewed as Paula Vennells’ incredible claims of ignorance. I doubt that when seeking this remunerative and high profile post as Chief Executive Officer she had majored before the selection panel upon her inability to keep her finger on the pulse of all the many facets of POL’s activities.In preparation for her appearance before the Select Committee, we might be tempted to infer from some disclosed material that she had fully appreciated the key issue of subpostpersons’ individual accounts having been secure from any -shall we say?- tampering by Fu-Jitsu personnel. Had she not sought confirmation of that from POL personnel, rather than having asked out of any genuine spirit of inquiry? I merely ask the question.
2. The audience of those wronged-I agree- did themselves much credit and displayed so much dignity. It strikes me that that was and as we can hope will remain the case at least in part by reason of the deft and-wherever necessary- assertive chairmanship of Sir Wyn.
3. I remain seriously troubled by the draft legislation especially now it is so in danger of being whisked precipitately through Parliament. I still very much fear that in terms of wide ranging miscarriages of justice there may be “another bus along in a minute (or buses)”. What price the rule of law and the separation of the powers then?
4. I can scarcely resist wondering “aloud” who on earth had sent Rishi Sunak out in the rain without so much as an umbrella.
I have been dipping in and out of the inquiry in recent weeks. I, too, have been impressed by Jason Beer's mastery of such a complex case & his polite manner. He is the author of the standard work on public inquiries. Vennells demolished indeed