Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is an example taken from the Centrally Assessed Mock exam paper given to all students on the BPTC this year. The facts of the case are irrelevant, other than the fact that the case is on the Fast Track, and even that shouldn't be relevant to question.

    The question is:

    "Leonard thinks he will be able to find someone who can provide expert evidence. Apart from obtaining and disclosing the relevant report (and leaving aside the form and content of the report itself), what procedural steps would have to be taken before Leonard could rely on expert evidence at trial?"

    3 Marks.

    So there are obvious and non-obvious answers to this question. Which cover 2 marks. You should be able to get 1.5 marks for this question without too much trouble. Seek permission from the court (1 mark), identify the field and the expert (0.5 marks for each)

    The final mark? 30% of the mark for this question.

    "because the claim is on the fast track, normally permission will be
    given for evidence from only one expert on a particular issue "

    How are you supposed to know that this is what they wanted, from the question asked?

    Is it obvious? Am I missing something?

    Or is it totally off the wall like I think it is, and nearly impossible to guess what they wanted from the question they posed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The entire scheme for marking these central assessments is, indeed, just absolutely barking. It's essentially a test of luck, rather than ability.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Konran)
    This is an example taken from the Centrally Assessed Mock exam paper given to all students on the BPTC this year. The facts of the case are irrelevant, other than the fact that the case is on the Fast Track, and even that shouldn't be relevant to question.

    The question is:

    "Leonard thinks he will be able to find someone who can provide expert evidence. Apart from obtaining and disclosing the relevant report (and leaving aside the form and content of the report itself), what procedural steps would have to be taken before Leonard could rely on expert evidence at trial?"

    3 Marks.

    So there are obvious and non-obvious answers to this question. Which cover 2 marks. You should be able to get 1.5 marks for this question without too much trouble. Seek permission from the court (1 mark), identify the field and the expert (0.5 marks for each)

    The final mark? 30% of the mark for this question.

    "because the claim is on the fast track, normally permission will be
    given for evidence from only one expert on a particular issue "

    How are you supposed to know that this is what they wanted, from the question asked?

    Is it obvious? Am I missing something?

    Or is it totally off the wall like I think it is, and nearly impossible to guess what they wanted from the question they posed?
    Does it tell you that the case is on the Fast Track? Or are there any other facts which make it seem likely that it is on the fast track? If not, it does seem like a bit of a leap.

    Unless they expect you to cover every possibility and the procedure for all tracks (and you get credit for the relevant one only).

    EDIT: I re-read your post. It tells you it's fast track so the answer should be obvious if you know the relevant Part and PD.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Konran)
    This is an example taken from the Centrally Assessed Mock exam paper given to all students on the BPTC this year. The facts of the case are irrelevant, other than the fact that the case is on the Fast Track, and even that shouldn't be relevant to question.

    The question is:

    "Leonard thinks he will be able to find someone who can provide expert evidence. Apart from obtaining and disclosing the relevant report (and leaving aside the form and content of the report itself), what procedural steps would have to be taken before Leonard could rely on expert evidence at trial?"

    3 Marks.

    So there are obvious and non-obvious answers to this question. Which cover 2 marks. You should be able to get 1.5 marks for this question without too much trouble. Seek permission from the court (1 mark), identify the field and the expert (0.5 marks for each)

    The final mark? 30% of the mark for this question.

    "because the claim is on the fast track, normally permission will be
    given for evidence from only one expert on a particular issue "

    How are you supposed to know that this is what they wanted, from the question asked?

    Is it obvious? Am I missing something?

    Or is it totally off the wall like I think it is, and nearly impossible to guess what they wanted from the question they posed?
    Surely the answer they are looking from this is to "agree the expert" with all parties (on account of there only being one?) and why would you "guess" what they are looking for isn't it a procedure exam - hence you would be being tested on procedure so would know the answer from having researched the rules on experts?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FMQ)
    Surely the answer they are looking from this is to "agree the expert" with all parties (on account of there only being one?) and why would you "guess" what they are looking for isn't it a procedure exam - hence you would be being tested on procedure so would know the answer from having researched the rules on experts?
    I the OP's point is that the question asked is about what procedural steps should be taken. The fact that the court will usually only give permission for a single expert, whilst clearly a relevant rule of procedure, is not a "step" which Leonard would have to take. It is the legal context in which such steps are taken.

    Hence anyone who focuses strictly - and properly - on answering only the question asked is unlikely to get full marks here.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mja)
    I the OP's point is that the question asked is about what procedural steps should be taken. The fact that the court will usually only give permission for a single expert, whilst clearly a relevant rule of procedure, is not a "step" which Leonard would have to take. It is the legal context in which such steps are taken.

    Hence anyone who focuses strictly - and properly - on answering only the question asked is unlikely to get full marks here.
    Surely an acknowledgment of possible outcomes forms part of a procedural plan. Otherwise you've only taken steps to do with the 'motions' but have not explored the 'procedure'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Surely an acknowledgment of possible outcomes forms part of a procedural plan. Otherwise you've only taken steps to do with the 'motions' but have not explored the 'procedure'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But isn't the problem that the question doesn't ask that the procedure be 'explored'? It asks for the steps that sould be taken - not why they are appropriate. Every point in answer to this question should be something that Leonard should do.

    I don't disagree with setting a question which does require the suggested answer. But (as a former BPTC student myself) I agree with the OP that the particular question asked doesn't relate with a sufficiently high degree of specificity to the answer proposed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mja)
    But isn't the problem that the question doesn't ask that the procedure be 'explored'? It asks for the steps that sould be taken - not why they are appropriate. Every point in answer to this question should be something that Leonard should do.

    I don't disagree with setting a question which does require the suggested answer. But (as a former BPTC student myself) I agree with the OP that the particular question asked doesn't relate with a sufficiently high degree of specificity to the answer proposed.
    Perhaps. I agree it isn't as well formulated as it should be.

    Nevertheless I reckon I would mention that a single expert would be allowed because, to me, it is part of the procedure (even if it is not strictly a procedural 'step').

    Maybe I have an inbuilt sense that mark schemes often contain this type if anomaly and that it is therefore better to cover all bases.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 5, 2013
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.