Forensic Psychological Assessment of Barry Clemson

Overview

Prepare a written outline of argument for a scenario involving an evidence law issue in a trial – the written submissions in part A support the oral moot presentation that forms part B of this assessment item.

Evidence law is ultimately about the regulation of evidence presented in court. Arguments about the application of evidence law underpin the conduct of civil and criminal cases. When running a court case, it is essential to be able to argue how the law of evidence affects whether certain evidence should be admitted or not. Courts require that these arguments be presented orally and by way of written submissions. In this task, you prepare written submissions (Part A) and present an oral argument based on those submissions (Part B) to demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills in a practical exercise.

Assessment 

• You are appearing as junior counsel for the prosecution in the trial of DDP v Douglass.
• The defence served the prosecution with an expert report from a forensic psychologist in relation to the psychological state of Barry Clemson in the lead-up to his death. There are no issues with notice - you can take it that the statement has been properly provided to the prosecution.
• Your task is to prepare submissions for a voir dire hearing on the question of whether the psychologist should be allowed to give any or all of the evidence contained in her statement.
• The psychologist report is attached as an additional document.
• You are to draft a speech/oral argument on the voir dire addressing why the evidence should be excluded or restricted

• The written submission document for this assignment should be prepared with footnote referencing in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal CitationLinks to an external site., 4th ed (AGLC4).

Brief Summary of Assessment Requirements

The assessment focuses on evidence law and its practical application in a trial setting. Students are required to:

1. Prepare a written outline of argument (Part A) supporting an oral moot presentation.

2. Serve as junior counsel for the prosecution in the trial DDP v Douglass .

3. Examine a forensic psychologist’s report concerning Barry Clemson and determine the admissibility of the evidence in a voir dire hearing.

4. Draft written submissions with proper footnote referencing according to AGLC4.

5. Prepare a speech/oral argument (Part B) based on the written submissions, addressing whether the psychologist’s evidence should be excluded or restricted.

The key learning objectives include: understanding the admission of evidence, applying evidence law principles, preparing formal legal submissions, and developing skills in oral advocacy.

Explanation of Assessment Approach by Academic Mentor

The Academic mentor guided the student through the assessment in a step-by-step process:

1. Understanding the Scenario:

   • Reviewed the case DDP v Douglass and the expert report of Barry Clemson.

   • Explained the context of a voir dire hearing and the importance of assessing admissibility of expert evidence.

2. Identifying Legal Issues:

   • Highlighted key issues such as relevance, reliability, and the potential prejudice of the psychologist’s report.

   • Emphasized identifying arguments for exclusion or restriction of evidence.

3. Drafting Written Submissions (Part A):

   • Guided the student to structure submissions logically: introduction, legal framework, analysis, conclusion.

   • Taught the use of footnotes and referencing according to AGLC4.

   • Encouraged inclusion of authoritative case law and statutes to support arguments.

4. Preparing Oral Argument (Part B):

   • Assisted the student in converting written submissions into speech form.

   • Focused on clear articulation, persuasive delivery, and responding to hypothetical objections during the moot.

   • Practiced time management and courtroom presentation skills.

5. Review and Refinement:

   • Reviewed the draft submissions for clarity, accuracy, and legal reasoning.

   • Advised on strengthening arguments and ensuring compliance with academic and professional standards.

Outcome and Learning Objectives Covered

• Outcome Achieved:

  • The student produced a cohesive written submission demonstrating knowledge of evidence law and admissibility issues.

  • The student successfully prepared and presented an oral argument for the voir dire, reflecting practical legal reasoning and advocacy skills.

• Learning Objectives Covered:

  1. Application of evidence law principles to real-world scenarios.

  2. Ability to analyze expert evidence and assess admissibility.

  3. Skills in drafting formal legal submissions with correct referencing.

  4. Development of oral advocacy skills for moot presentations.

  5. Critical thinking in weighing legal arguments for inclusion or exclusion of evidence.

Access Expert Academic Guidance – Safely & Effectively

Looking for a clear, high-quality reference to help you understand your assignment? You can download our sample solution to see how a professional approach looks. Remember: this sample is for reference purposes only. Submitting it as your own work is considered plagiarism and could seriously affect your grades.

Want a solution that’s completely original, tailored to your brief, and plagiarism-free? Our team of professional academic writers can craft a fresh assignment for you, ensuring accuracy, clarity, and high academic standards. Ordering a custom solution means you get:

• Step-by-step, fully explained answers tailored to your assignment brief.

• Plagiarism-free content written specifically for you.

• Reliable formatting and referencing according to academic standards.

• Peace of mind, knowing your submission is unique and ready for evaluation.

Important: The sample solution is strictly for learning and guidance. Always use it to understand structure, concepts, and problem-solving approaches rather than submitting it as your own.

Take Action Now:

Download Sample Solution                              Order Fresh Assignment