[Solved] Being Cross-Examined

Having benefitted a lot from this site, thought I should share what I can in case it is useful. I couldn't find anything to help me with being cross-examined when I was self-representing at a Magistrates Court, nor much in the way of help. In fact, when I had to cross examine the ex, it was a shambles, but when her barrister cross-examined me it was a total gift. Please note, this was in a Magistrates' Court - and as usual, it comes with the condition that you have to be able to pour all of your emotional energy into the cold hard facts of the case that you know better than anyone.

By profession, I teach philosophy and rhetoric at Cambridge, so I can put a sentence together - but in terms of identifying what is legally relevant and what is not, I am a total amateur. But here is what worked - and it worked to the extent that the barrister got emotional and teary-eyed that her technique wasn't working:

1. The Barrister used (as many of them do) a rhetorical device that is like a boxer loading a punch. She began by making a simple statement with which any person would agree. And then another, and then another - and you are expected to say "yes, yes, yes" because you want to appear reasonable. However, as the questions continue they get more specific, until you get to the point where you say "Yes, but..." Of course, they are not interested in anything after your "but." The key, for me, was to to say "no" as early as possible in the sequence of questions.

For instance:
a. Surely you agree that the children love their mother.
b. Surely you agree that the mother loves the children.
c. Surely you agree that she only wants what is best for the children.

At point C., I just said "No". Of course, the whole court stares at me. But then I have chance to expand. "I do not believe that in this particular instance, the mother's prime concern is the wellbeing of the children."

You know your case better than any barrister - and if there is a way of saying No as early as possible, you're less likely to walk into a rhetorical trap.

2. "Love" is a word thrown around a lot in court - and barristers know precisely how to exploit its ambiguity. I refuse to use it, because it is not specific enough. Instead, I stuck to the language of "my wellbeing and my happiness is entirely dependent upon the wellbeing and happiness of the children." It is a long-winded way of saying that you love them, but it shows that love (for you) is not simply a sentiment, or an emotive word, but has actual hard-core content.

3. There are various facts which are not relevant in court - because they do not pertain directly to the case. However, they would subconsciously help the court to build a picture. They may not be relevant, but once spoken the court cannot unhear them. I presented these in the knowledge that they would be struck from the record. Some points were just made outright, others were smuggled into other statements. These points included: the mother ending the marriage to set up with another guy; that other guy being violent with the kids; the kids hating him; the mother losing her driving licence, being accused of fraud, etc etc. These cannot be the main part of an argument, but if you're self-representing you can still get them in 'innocently'.

Finally - it goes without saying that it's best to treat everyone with utter courtesy and respect. It is perfectly possible to annihilate them whilst doing so.

My case was scheduled for 2 days, but ended after less than one because the other party's arguments evaporated.