BPTC

COURT VISIT
REPORT FORM
Bar Professional
Training Course
NOTE: This report should be a maximum of three A4 sides. It can be either hand
written or typed. The size of the space provided is indicative of the amount of
information required.
Name & Group numer: Alexander James Collins inchliffe! "roup #C
!a"e of a""en#an$e: $%
st
&ay $'%4
Cour" %isi" numer: %
Cour" name an# a##ress
&anchester Crown Court! Crown (quare! &anchester! &# #)*


Cour" Case name an# Numer
T$'%#+4$,! T$'%#+4#4! T$'%#++'' - v Ahmed Al./hatib! &uhammed Al./hatib 0
ussain Al./hatib 1mornin23
T$'%%+#4% - v Jameel 5eeshan 1afternoon3
&eng"' of "ime of $ase('earing - v Al./hatib %'6''am 7 %$6#'pm
- v 5eeshan %#6#'pm 7 %+6''pm
T)pe of appli$a"ion*s+($ase*s+ 'ear# - v Al./hatib 7 trial for murder 7 examination.
in.chief and cross.examination of expert witness.
- v 5eesahn 7 trial for s.%8 woundin2 with intent 7 application to exclude evidence!
cross.examination and re.examination of defendant! examination of two further
witnesses.
Names of represen"a"i%es ,soli$i"or(arris"er- if possile
- v Al./hatib 7 9rosecution . Anthony Cross: ;% 7 Tahir /han: ;$ 7 <arry "rennan:
;# 7 u2h <arton
- v 5eeshan 7 9rosecution 7 -ichard =ardon: ;% 7 Ian &etcalfe: ;$ . Jon arrison
Case repor"
>9rovide a brief summary of the hearin2?case! this includes providin2 details of
procedure! practice! evidence called! witnesses! @ud2ments etcA
R % .l/0'a"i
This is a hi2h.profile case concernin2 whether or not the first defendant and his
brother were involved in the murder of the first defendantBs wife. The mornin2 was
spent with the examination.in.chief and cross.examination of a psychiatrist who was
appearin2 as an expert witness in respect of the first defendant! Ahmed Al./hatib. The
expert witness was 2ivin2 evidence in respect of claims by the defendant that he had
experienced depression! hallucinations! and schizophrenia in the period leadin2 up to
the death of his wife.
The witness was called and sworn! and his expertBs report was entered as evidence.
The prosecution tooC the witness throu2h his report! asCin2 questions to extrapolate
detail and clarification from the written report. In particular! the prosecution focussed
on whether the defendantBs psycholo2ical issues were of such an extremity as to
support a potential defence of diminished responsibility. As the doctorBs evidence
lar2ely supported the prosecution case! defence counsel focussed his cross.
examination on establishin2 a lacC of certainty in the psychiatristBs evidence! in
particular addressin2 the fact that the doctor could not cate2orically rule out the extent
of the defendantBs psycholo2ical condition.
R % 1ees'an
This case concerned a s.%8 woundin2 with intent! arisin2 from circumstances which
had already been explored durin2 the earlier prosecution of another defendant for
firearms offences . the defendant in this case had been involved in the circumstances
of the previous case! however was bein2 tried separately for a less serious offence.
The afternoon be2an with an application to exclude prosecution evidence consistin2 of
letters from the defendant convicted in the previous firearms case and the defendant in
the present case. The defence made submissions that the letters had been disclosed
late and were hi2hly pre@udicial! especially considerin2 that the defendant in the
present case had received! and not actually written! the letters. The application was!
however! refused! as the @ud2e considered that the letters were hi2hly probative! and
that the defendant would have the opportunity to explain their content.
)ollowin2 the application was the cross.examination of the defendant. Transcripts from
the previous case were exhibited! and the prosecution focussed on displayin2
inconsistencies between the defendantBs answers in the present case and answers he
had 2iven previously. The aforementioned letters were similarly exhibited and the
defendant was questioned on these also! in particular on the relationship he had with
the individual convicted in the previous firearms case. Dpon re.examination! defence
counsel addressed the defendantBs le2al advice as a reason for his Eno.commentB
police interview! alon2 with the notion that he did not encoura2e or invite the letters
written by the convicted individual from the previous case.
Two final witnesses were called to 2ive brief evidence to rebut alle2ations that the
defendant and his family were racist. These witnesses were the defendantBs nei2hbour
and brother. In each case the prosecution explored the reason for these witnesses
bein2 called! and in particular whether or not they had been asCed to 2ive particular
evidence in favour of the defendant. ;efence counsel countered these su22estions!
establishin2 that the witnesses had been approached in the company of solicitors who
had asCed if they were willin2 to 2ive evidence without tryin2 to influence or su22est
what evidence they mi2ht 2ive.
Cri"i$al anal)sis2
Fou should provide a critical analysis of the advocacy! @ud2ment?decision you
observed in court.
R % .l/0'a"i
The prosecutionBs advocacy appeared to be lar2ely functional! which was assisted by
the fact that the expertBs report appeared to support his case. e focussed on leadin2
the psychiatrist throu2h the report! asCin2 him to provide a more expansive account
or explanation of what he had written. is advocacy became more persuasive as the
psychiatrist reached the part of his evidence concernin2 whether or the defendant
displayed a sufficient level of psycholo2ical abnormality to be consistent with a
defence of diminished responsibility. The prosecution were Ceen to reiterate the point
that the psychiatrist did not believe that the defendant displayed a severe enou2h
de2ree of mental abnormality to support a defence of diminished responsibility. e
also reiterated that the psychiatrist was of the view that the defendant displayed a
lar2er de2ree of mental a2ility than would be consistent with the disorders he was
claimin2 to suffer from. 9rosecution counsel used this evidence to su22est that the
defendant may have been embellishin2 his claims of hallucinations.
;efence counsel en2a2ed in a more persuasive style of advocacy. As the
psychiatristBs report was not in the defendantBs favour! counsel focussed on the
shortcomin2s of psychiatry as a practice in itself. e elicited from the expert witness
that he could not be completely sure that the defendant was not experiencin2 the
psychoses that he claimed. e further explored the idea that not all patients would
express the same de2ree and severity of symptoms. Ghilst prosecution counsel had
been successful in elicitin2 the psychiatristBs evidence on a functional level! I consider
that defence counsel was more persuasive. In particular! he was able to 2et the
expert witness to concede as to the uncertainty of his conclusions! and the fact that
the defendant may well possibly be experiencin2 the severity of mental disorder that
he was claimin2! despite the doctorBs conclusions to the contrary.
R % 1ees'an
I found defence counselBs initial application to dismiss to be very persuasive: counsel
was Ceen to hi2hli2ht the fact that the prosecution had disclosed the letters late! and
the pre@udicial nature arisin2 from the fact that they were written by an individual
convicted in related previous proceedin2s. In particular! counsel hi2hli2hted the fact
that the defendant had neither encoura2ed nor replied to the letters. In the event! I
was surprised by the @ud2eBs decision to allow the evidence. Althou2h the @ud2e and
prosecution counsel each hi2hli2hted that the defendant would have an opportunity
to explain the letters! I disa2ree that this opportunity outwei2hed their pre@udicial
effect.
9rosecution counsel was very persuasive durin2 his cross.examination of the
defendant. e had an excellent variation in tone! Ceepin2 the advocacy interestin2
and en2a2in2! and he was adept at hi2hli2htin2 inconsistencies between the
defendantBs answers and those 2iven durin2 previous proceedin2s. e had a forceful!
almost a22ressive and incredulous style! which was hi2hly effective in underminin2
the defendantBs evidence. owever! when addressin2 the final two character
witnesses 1who were not involved in the offence itself3 I found that he maintained his
forceful style! which came across as unnecessarily a22ressive when dealin2 with
these particular witnesses.
;urin2 his re.examination of the defendant defence counsel addressed many of the
points raised by the prosecution! for example the fact that he had not responded to
the letters in question. owever! whilst he was clear in elicitin2 the points he needed
to maCe! the persuasiveness of his advocacy felt si2nificantly inferior next to the
performance 2iven by prosecution counsel! and he lacCed the same de2ree of
variation in tone and expression in his delivery.