BPTC Advocacy Paper 2

You represent the prosecution at the Crown Court. The defendant, James Hartley, aged 28, is charged with robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The allegation is that on 22 November 2025, at approximately 11:45pm, the defendant approached the complainant, Mr Raj Patel, outside a convenience store on Brixton Road, demanded his wallet and mobile phone, and punched him in the face when he hesitated. Mr Patel suffered a fractured cheekbone. The defendant was arrested 30 minutes later, two streets away, in possession of a wallet containing Mr Patel's bank cards and a phone matching the description of the stolen device. In interview, the defendant claimed Mr Patel had voluntarily given him the items in exchange for drugs and that the injury was caused when Mr Patel tripped and fell. The defendant has three previous convictions: two for theft and one for common assault. CCTV footage from the store captures the initial approach but the camera angle does not show the moment of alleged contact. Mr Patel identified the defendant at a VIPER identification procedure. Prepare your opening speech to the jury, outlining the prosecution case, the evidence to be called, and the issues the jury will need to determine.

You are instructed on behalf of the respondent mother in care proceedings before the Family Court. The local authority seeks a care order in respect of two children: Lily, aged 6, and Oscar, aged 3. The threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are conceded on the basis that the children suffered emotional harm due to exposure to domestic abuse perpetrated by the father, Mr Dean Whitfield, against the mother, your client Ms Jade Cooper. The father is not a party and has had no contact with the family for 12 months. The local authority's care plan is for long-term foster care, arguing that Ms Cooper has failed to engage with domestic abuse support services and that the pattern of returning to abusive relationships places the children at continued risk. Your client instructs you that she has now completed a Freedom Programme, attends weekly counselling, and has obtained a non-molestation order against Mr Whitfield. She seeks the return of the children to her care under a supervision order. Prepare your submissions at the final hearing on the appropriate order, addressing the welfare checklist, the principle of proportionality, and why the care plan for long-term foster care is neither necessary nor proportionate.

You represent the claimant in a personal injury trial before a district judge sitting in the County Court. Your client, Mrs Angela Thornton, aged 58, a self-employed florist, slipped on a wet floor in a Tesco supermarket on 3 April 2025. There were no warning signs displayed. She suffered a displaced fracture of her left wrist requiring surgical fixation with a plate and screws, followed by 12 weeks in a cast. She continues to experience reduced grip strength and limited range of motion, which affects her ability to prepare floral arrangements. Medical evidence from Mr Kapoor, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, confirms a 15% permanent impairment of the left wrist with ongoing pain. Tesco denies liability, alleging the spill occurred only moments before the accident and that their cleaning protocol involves hourly inspections. Their witness, the duty manager Ms Singh, says she completed an inspection 10 minutes before the accident and the floor was dry. However, CCTV shows a customer dropping a bottle of cooking oil approximately 35 minutes before the accident. No inspection appears on the CCTV in the intervening period. The defendant has also obtained a surveillance report showing Mrs Thornton carrying heavy boxes at a flower market 6 weeks after surgery. Prepare your closing submissions on both liability and quantum, dealing with the CCTV evidence, the surveillance footage, and the appropriate level of damages.

You are instructed as leading junior counsel for the defendant in a multi-day commercial fraud trial at the Crown Court. Your client, Dr Priya Sharma, a GP and company director, is charged with fraud by abuse of position contrary to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. The prosecution alleges that between January 2023 and March 2025, she diverted £1.2 million from a healthcare company she co-founded with two other doctors into personal accounts and a property in her husband's name. The prosecution relies on forensic accounting evidence from their expert, Mr Grainger, who traces fund flows through 14 bank accounts. Your client says all transfers were authorised under the company's articles of association, which gave directors broad powers to make distributions, and that the other co-directors were aware of and consented to the payments. You have instructed your own forensic accountant, Ms Okello, who disputes Mr Grainger's methodology in tracing several fund flows and identifies £380,000 of the alleged £1.2 million as legitimate business expenses. The prosecution expert is about to give evidence. Prepare your cross-examination plan for Mr Grainger, identifying the key areas to challenge, the documents you would put to him, and the concessions you would seek.