BPTC Advocacy Paper 1

You represent Marcus Jenkins, a 34-year-old delivery driver charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The prosecution alleges that on 15 March 2025, your client was driving a transit van at excessive speed through a residential area when he struck and killed a pedestrian, Mrs Doreen Walsh, aged 72, who was crossing at a zebra crossing. Your client instructs you that he was travelling at approximately 28mph in a 30mph zone, that Mrs Walsh stepped out suddenly from behind a parked SUV, and that he braked immediately but could not avoid the collision. The prosecution relies on dashcam footage from a following vehicle, which is of poor quality and does not clearly show the speed. Two eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts: one says the van was speeding, the other says Mrs Walsh did not look before crossing. Your client has no previous convictions and an exemplary driving record spanning 16 years. He was not using his mobile phone and was not under the influence of any substance. Prepare your closing speech to the jury, addressing the standard of proof, the weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, and why the jury cannot be sure that your client's driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

You are instructed by the claimant, Brightfield Developments Ltd, in a breach of contract claim against Oakwood Construction Ltd. Your client engaged Oakwood to build a 12-unit residential development in Chelmsford for a fixed price of £2.4 million, with a completion date of 1 September 2025. Oakwood ceased work on 15 July 2025 when the development was approximately 70% complete, alleging that Brightfield had failed to make stage payments on time. Your client admits that two payments totalling £180,000 were made 14 and 21 days late respectively, but says this was because Oakwood had not provided the required certification of completed stages as stipulated in clause 7.3 of the contract. Brightfield engaged a replacement contractor who completed the works for £1.1 million (against the remaining £720,000 that would have been due to Oakwood). Your client also claims £340,000 in lost rental income due to the 4-month delay. The matter is listed for a case management conference. Prepare your submissions on directions, addressing disclosure, expert evidence, witness statements, and a realistic timetable to trial.

You represent the respondent employer, Pinnacle Financial Services Ltd, at an Employment Tribunal hearing. The claimant, Sarah Okafor, a former senior analyst, claims she was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about potential regulatory breaches to her line manager. Pinnacle says Ms Okafor was dismissed for persistent underperformance, evidenced by three consecutive poor appraisals over 18 months and a formal performance improvement plan (PIP) that she failed. Ms Okafor's witness statement asserts she only received negative appraisals after she raised concerns about the firm's failure to report suspicious transactions under the Money Laundering Regulations. She is about to be cross-examined by you. Her statement contains a key assertion at paragraph 14: "I raised my concerns about suspicious transactions with my manager, David Chen, on 5 January 2025, and from that point onwards my appraisal scores dropped significantly." However, the disclosed documents show her first negative appraisal was dated 12 November 2024 — before the alleged disclosure. Prepare your plan for cross-examining Ms Okafor on the timeline of events, identifying the documents you would put to her and the propositions you would seek to establish.

You are junior counsel representing the appellant, Greenway Housing Association, in an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The case concerns the Association's attempt to obtain a possession order against a secure tenant, Mr Kofi Asante, on the grounds of anti-social behaviour under Ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. At trial, the circuit judge found that Mr Asante had engaged in behaviour capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to neighbours, including playing loud music late at night and verbal altercations, but refused to make a possession order on the basis that it was not reasonable to do so, citing Mr Asante's mental health difficulties and the availability of alternative measures such as injunctions. Your leading counsel has asked you to prepare the opening submissions for the appeal, addressing the correct legal test for reasonableness under Ground 2, the grounds on which you say the judge erred, and why the Court of Appeal should intervene.