Have your questions developed a steady rhythm?

Transcript of proceedings foreshadows life under the new Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates ... Barristers required to meet competency standards ... Assessment panels and judicial evaluation ... The future has arrived ... Leverhulme's London Calling   

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 17^th November 2012 

Before:

Pimlico, Buttermouth and Ludlow-Scott LJJ

Al Zarooni-Appellant

V

R - Respondent

17^th November 2012 (Weekend and Night-time sitting)

Transcript of Proceedings

Pimlico L.J: Who appears for the Appellant in the first matter?

Voice from the back of the court: I do.

Pimlico L.J: Who are you?

Interpreter: I am Mr Al Zarooni's interpreter. He says you can call him Al.

Pimlico L.J: Come forward please. Swear him in. Where is his lawyer? Sorry, under the Human Rights Act he is not obliged to have a lawyer nor is the court entitled to draw any inferences in respect of his apparent  failure to have a...

Interpreter: He says Mr Showfolk can't speak today.

Pimlico L.J: Why? This case has been listed for weeks. Who appears for the prosecution? Mr Percy-Biggins?

Mr Percy-Biggins: Well, not in so many words, my Lord. I'm here to assist.

Pimlico L.J: What does that mean? Why can't you argue the case?

Mr Percy-Biggins: My Lord, I'm not competent to appear at this level.

Pimlico L.J: You've been appearing before us for years Mr Percy-Biggins.

Mr Percy-Biggins: I know my Lord. But I've been too busy to do the advocacy training. I haven't been assessed. I need to brush up on my diversity awareness. Ms Douglas-Grave was counsel at the trial and was due to appear this morning but she didn't succeed in obtaining her compulsory renewal.

Pimlico L.J: Her what?

Mr Percy-Biggins: Her compulsory renewal under the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates - it's a product of the Joint Advocacy Group. She was required to be assessed as competent in a range of simulated court room and practical assessments as devised by the Professional Development Division of the College of Knowledge which is now wholly owned by Rockchomp Inc. a group of Russian venture capitalists.

Pimlico L.J: I don't follow you, Mr Percy-Biggins.

Mr Percy-Biggins: Technically, Ms Douglas-Grave's appearance today would have fallen outside the five year period for accreditation because she wishes to remain at Level 3 and does not want to progress to Level 4. She found out this morning that the assessment organisation had failed her on three grounds.

One, her questioning technique was not intuitive and did not appear to be effortless pursuant to competency standard 124.

Two, she did not readily offer sound authorities and/or solutions including novel solutions in unusual situations pursuant to competency standard 12; and

Three, and I am instructed that this was her worst shortcoming according to the assessment panel, she did not view the case holistically from the outset, which is a breach of competency standard 26.

Pimlico L.J:  How does one go about writing a simulated assessment for those things, Mr Percy-Biggins? How can one write a case study that tests whether a person's questioning technique is intuitive or whether they are viewing a case holistically? If a carpenter makes a defective table, he is liable. He shouldn't have to pass exams to progress to a sideboard. The proof of the pudding ... 

Anyway, I can see Ms Douglas-Grave sitting in the back of the court.

Mr Percy- Biggins: Well, my Lord, technically you cannot. She has disrobed. Put another way, and for the sake of completeness, she is unable to appear in these Level 4 proceedings even provisionally. But she will be appealing and is taking a jurisdictional point.

Pimlico L.J: Which is?

Mr Percy-Biggins: She says that assessment panels must comprise suitable qualified individuals with knowledge and experience of, inter alia "assessment of competence in a real work environment". She says a member of her panel did not meet that criterion.

Pimlico L.J: Why not?

Mr Percy-Biggins: Apparently, he was a journalist.

Pimlico LJ:  Interpreter. Please ask Mr Al Zarooni where his lawyer is?

Interpreter: He says Mr Showfolk is sitting in the back with the prosecutor. He is unable to speak because he didn't pass the judicial evaluation. It is different from a test set by an assessment organisation. He was required to obtain a maximum of five pieces of judicial evaluation over a 12 month period; three of which were to confirm that he was competent at his current level and ready to progress to the next level.

The judge at the trial, who Mr Al Zarooni says used to be a mechanic and did her degree part-time at the Open University, said she didn't understand the form. She finally filled it out last night. Mr Showfolk failed in a couple of competencies.

Pimlico L.J: Which were?

Interpreter:  He didn't tailor his submission to meet the expectations of the tribunal. That is competency 59. The judge wanted him to plead guilty. In fact, they got into an argument about it.

She also accused Mr Showfolk in open court of not being a good role model for other defence lawyers. Luckily she didn't know that was in the Statement of Standards at the time. Nor was she aware that he was required under competency 140 to be agile and responsive to the sentiment of the judge.

Pimlico L.J: How does Mr Al Zarooni know all this?

Interpreter: He says he was a lawyer in Yemen for five years. And in case you're wondering, he says he is entitled to live here because no-one checked his passport. He runs a legal services practice in Croydon. He kicks people out of their homes.

Pimlico L.J: I see. Go on.

Interpreter: The second problem with Mr Showfolk, he says, was the judge didn't think he was a self-assured and unflappable advocate (competency 73). But her strongest complaint was under competency 114.

Pimlico L.J: What is that?

Interpreter: His lawyer's questioning failed to develop a steady rhythm.

Pimlico L.J: What was he convicted of?

Interpreter: It is a Level 4 case and a Class D offence: "Causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act." It's a breach of Section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Pimlico L.J: What happened?

Appellant: I was shagging this bloke's missus. He walked in on us and went nuts. The offence is the wrong way round. One happened after the other, in my respectful submission.

Pimlico L.J: What do you want the court to do today?

Appellant: Squash my conviction.

Pimlico L.J: Are you in a position to argue this appeal without counsel?

Appellant: Of course, I'm what they call a litigant in person. I'm told you English judges will always bend over backwards to help us.

Pimlico L.J: Us?

Interpreter: Yes my Lord, there are no lawyers in court tonight. Everyone is unrepresented - even the prosecution. It's for the best, don't you think?