The difference between moots and mock trials
Although moots are sometimes referred to as mock trials, the two exercises are, in fact, quite distinct from each other.
More particularly, a mock trial is really a form of amateur dramatics which relies heavily on improvisation.
Although mock trials will usually be staged in the context of the Crown Court, there is no reason why a scenario taken from civil law should not be used, with the trial being placed in a county court. However, the model of a criminal case in the Crown Court is so common that the remaining comments here will assume, for the sake of simplicity, that this is the kind of mock trial which is being staged. On this basis, therefore, the idea is that someone will be charged with an offence, for which he or she will then be tried.Turning to the nuts-and-bolts of staging a mock trial, the offence itself may have been enacted, with potential witnesses being placed strategically so that they can give witness statements and – ultimately – evidence; or someone may simply write a set of witness statements, which are then treated as a script. As with mooting, there may be a pair of advocates for each of the prosecution and the defence, or there may be only one on each side. There will, of course, be a jury. Whoever conceives the mock trial (if the offence is enacted) or whoever writes the witness statements (where it is not) will take care to include at least one point of law which is capable of being argued either way. Whether the offence has been staged or merely scripted, much of the fun of a mock trial comes from the way in which the witnesses improvise answers to the questions put to them by the advocates in respect of matters which arise on an unforeseen basis as the trial unfolds.
The advantages of mock trials over moots is that they give far more students the opportunity to become involved, since witnesses, jurors and at least one defendant will be required, as well as the advocates.
However, the disadvantages are substantial. First, a mock trial is much more complicated to set up (especially if the offence is enacted) and the actual performance takes much longer (it being difficult to get through any mock trial in less than two hours, with three being more realistic, in which time four or five moots could have been heard. Secondly, the advocates must have at least some knowledge of the law of evidence (and since this is typically taught at Level Three, the pool of students from which the advocates may be drawn is inevitably restricted). Thirdly, even where the offence has been enacted, it has clearly not been actually committed. (Even in the interests of artistic integrity, it would not be practicable to stage an actual murder or rape, for example; and if the offence is one of dishonesty there will equally clearly have been no actual dishonesty because the defendant would simply have been playing a part.) Finally, and leaving aside whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage, the practical difficulties in staging mock trials makes it impracticable to incorporate them into programmes of assessment.
More on the topic The difference between moots and mock trials:
- Advocacy in present-day courts
- Critique of our critique of the deontic (or prescriptivist) conception
- SUMMARY
- Advocacy for mooters
- ABSTRACT
- The uses of advocacy to client and advocate
- Roman Law Terms with Letters Q
- SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- 1.3 HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT AND THE POLITICS OF POWER
- CHAPTER X. SPECIAL CASES. SERVUS VICARIUS. S. FILIIFAMILIAS. S. IN BONIS. S. LATINI.
- Additional commentary on the report
- CONCLUSIONS
- CONCLUSION
- For comparison: advocacy at Athens and in the Hellenistic world