Cross Examination

[hazemaze]

Are you cross examined about your final statement or all previous statements at a final hearing?

 

[Resolute]

My cross examination was on everything my ex's barrister thought had a chance of making me look bad. There was no intervention from the judge on questions. The judge turned down my requests to provide direction. The barrister deliberately covered his microphone so what he said was unintelligible. This went on for about three hours.

 

[Resolute]

This kinda works as a guide to how barrister and solicitor methods work:

Put simply, all answers/responses are ok except:

Yes
No
Don't know
Don't care

This is why I believe we have to shift the ground rather than try to win in the arena they set up.

Edit:
To be clear, I am not saying all women are...

 

[Ash]

Are you cross examined about your final statement or all previous statements at a final hearing?

It's mainly on your final statement, which is why that needs to be 100% accurate and truthful because the other Barrister needs to try and prove you're lying about something. They can't do that if it's 100% accurate and truthful. And why you need to know your own statement really well before the hearing. But they can bring other things into it as well. There is no harm in pausing before answering to clear your head. The Barrister's other motivation is to push you into being angry or losing your cool - so you look bad and they can say - look he has anger issues. So don't lose your cool.

 

[hazemaze]

So if the exs solicitor starts on about references made in say the first statement but the final statement has changed ( updated say) can you mention its irrelevant?

 

[Ash]

Well if something in your first statement contradicts something in your final statement, then yes they might raise it and you'd need an explanation. The difference is, things said in your final statement can be backed up by evidence.

Can you give an example?

 

[Resolute]

It's mainly on your final statement, which is why that needs to be 100% accurate and truthful because the other Barrister needs to try and prove you're lying about something. They can't do that if it's 100% accurate and truthful. And why you need to know your own statement really well before the hearing. But they can bring other things into it as well. There is no harm in pausing before answering to clear your head. The Barrister's other motivation is to push you into being angry or losing your cool - so you look bad and they can say - look he has anger issues. So don't lose your cool.

I second what Ash says here. My judge didn't intervene, at the time it was infuriating. But, he got what he needed to know by seeing me remain calm and reasonable in the face of outrageous baiting from the barrister. He was very complimentary about my conduct as we approached the end of the day and curtly put the barrister in his place.