Bond University Mooting Competition

[eeps]

Are any Legal Studies students on VCENotes competing for their school in this competition?

My school is up against Cranbourne Secondary College; I'm acting as solicitor. Below is the list of schools competing and who they're up against.

Shelford Girls Grammar v. Strathcona Baptist Girls' Grammar
Cranbourne Secondary College v. Camberwell Grammar School
Glen Waverley Secondary College v. The Mac.Robertson Girls' High School
Caulfield Grammar School - Caulfield Campus v. Haileybury College
Overnewton Anglican Community College v. Haileybury Girls College
Caulfield Grammar School - Wheelers Hill Campus v. Kew High School
   
Warrnambool College v. St Catherine's School
St Michaels Grammar School v. Geelong Grammar School
Melbourne High School v. Carey Baptist Grammar School
Melbourne Girls Grammar v. Xavier College
Brighton Grammar School v. Scotch College

[burbs]

I'm in.

[Liuy]

So many prestigious schools ahhaha, should be great


btw EPL, where did you get that list from?

[eeps]

So many prestigious schools ahhaha, should be great

btw EPL, where did you get that list from?

The teacher at my school who's coordinating the whole process for us gave the list to me with the times and details. He sent an email to the woman organising the whole competition. I don't think it's stated on Bond University's website, hence I posted the teams here. I forgot to mention, the schools on the left are the appellant and the schools to the right are the respondent.

[chrisjb]

Glen Waverley Secondary College v. The Mac.Robertson Girls' High School

aww shii-

[JohnnySins]

Im in

[tram]

One of the best experiences i had last year. Have fun with it guys, it teaches some really good skills. Just stick in "your honors" where ever you can, it makes the 'judges' (they're really just academics, and they're the same people each year) feel like they're important

Make sure you know the precedent case back to front, you don't know how impressive it is in response to a question from the bench if you can say "if i may direct your honors to page 26, paragraph two of Peterson V Mills, we see justice kirby outline the legal test for a whether or not something is a mistake of fact or a mistake for law"

haha, i'm still annoyed that my team just missed out on going to the gold coast last year haha. If you perform well enough they pay for you to fly up and for fancy accommodation and everything haha.

[eeps]

How does the competition work? =\ From what I was told, only the highest-scoring teams in each state progress to the Nationals? So even if you win against the opposition school, it doesn't guarantee that you'll progress...

[tram]

How does the competition work? =\ From what I was told, only the highest-scoring teams in each state progress to the Nationals? So even if you win against the opposition school, it doesn't guarantee that you'll progress...

Basically the two 'judges' pick the best two (sometimes three) teams and they get into finals. also they don't say who wins or not. They just give feedback on the day. Later, all schools find out is the two teams that got into the finals and the 7 or so people who received merit advocacy awards.

also anyone mind posting up this year's case and the precedent case? Would be interested to have a look at the issue for this year

[eeps]

also anyone mind posting up this year's case and the precedent case? Would be interested to have a look at the issue for this year

This. The case starts on page 12. This year's case is alright I guess.  =\

[cltf]

Tram can you explain the roles of the Junior and Senior please?

[eeps]

From what I read in the handout:

Appellant’s counsel will proceed to argue the case. Each student on that side will have ten (10) minutes to make his/her submissions. Respondent counsel will then open the Respondent’s case. Each student will have ten (10) minutes to make his/her submissions.

@cltf, you don't have to use up the whole 10 minutes; just however long it takes you to rebut the Appellant's arguments and present our own arguments. It's essentially a debate. Read the link which Carl posted; it helps.

[cltf]

@cltf, you don't have to use up the whole 10 minutes; just however long it takes you to rebut the Appellant's arguments and present our own arguments. It's essentially a debate. Read the link which Carl posted; it helps.

I did, and I really didn't get, it sounds like a whole of rebutting and then reiterating your own points twice.

[eeps]

@cltf, you don't have to use up the whole 10 minutes; just however long it takes you to rebut the Appellant's arguments and present our own arguments. It's essentially a debate. Read the link which Carl posted; it helps.

I did, and I really didn't get, it sounds like a whole of rebutting and then reiterating your own points twice.

In which case, we need to find other points to talk about. The structure outlined is the right way to go I think; it's more the content then. Your points can overlap with the Senior Counsel's? I'll read over the case again. I would think the rebutting will take up a good 5 minutes, depending on what arguments the Appellant brings up.

[tram]

There's no real structure tbh. Basically just come up with at least four (two per person) points of law that support your side of your argument.

From there you can really just follow the good ol' TEEL structure (not even kidding) just have a topic sentence (the issue you want to talk about) then have some explanation of why this supports you, why it is relevant, etc and then while you're doing this insert quotes from the precedent case and the current case drawing similarities.

something to remember is that you can have a point that simply distinguishes between the current case and the precedent case on a point of law (kind of like rebuttal). As for the rebuttal that you would be used to in debating and whatnot, this mainly comes from the questions that the judges will ask you during your submission so basically just be prepared to defend your reasoning when you get asked a question in the middle of a point.

The reason that there's no real rebuttal is because you essentially have no contact with the other team. Unlike in debating where teams make alternating speeches, with mooting, one team presents their case, one speaker after the other, then the other team presents their case. So of course the first team can't really directly rebut any materiel. Again this is why all 'rebuttal' is done thought the judge