Assessing oral skills—time for reflection,time for risk

Abstract

THIS PAPER aims to establish a framework from which we can explain our dissatisfaction with defining what we teach and what and how we assess within legal education. To what extent can we, the professions or the public, have confidence that our assessment processes predict effective professional competence?

We will try to establish this framework by placing the discussion in the context of a workshop of assessment of oral skills run at the 2001 Bar Vocational Course conference. The workshop raised issues which we believe encapsulate the difficulties of measuring performance in such a way that it reliably predicts professional effectiveness. From this we will attempt to highlight the shortcomings of the current teaching, learning and assessment strategies more generally.

We go on to consider the role of student reflection in support of summative assessment: is it a reliable way of helping to plug the competence‐performance gap we have identified? What is its role in summative assessment? What demands does it make on tutor and learner? Since we cannot guarantee to find the best solutions first time, we make a plea for taking the risk of failure as well as success, and trying out ideas.     

Increased Voting for Candidates Who Compensate Victims Rather than Punish Offenders

Three studies demonstrate that people are more likely to vote for political candidates who respond to injustice in a compensatory rather than punitive manner. Participants were more likely to vote for candidates who responded to various transgressions (the Darfur crisis, campus bike theft, and domestic violence) by compensating victims (or simultaneously compensating victims and punishing perpetrators) rather than solely punishing the perpetrator or not responding. Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of candidates’ warmth (but not competence) mediated the relationship between punishing versus compensating and voting.     

Abolishing Marriage: Can Civil Partnership Cover it?

This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.

A Study of the Predictors of Persistence in Stalking Situations

Stalkers engaging in persistent campaigns of harassment have the potential to cause immense harm to their victims and themselves. Being able to estimate which stalkers are likely to persist longest is important to clinicians dealing with both perpetrators and victims. This study of 200 stalkers investigated characteristics of the stalkers and their behaviour that were associated with increased persistence. Logistic regression models were developed to predict low, moderate, and highly persistent stalking. The results supported previous research indicating that the type of prior relationship between stalker and victim is strongly associated with persistence, with prior acquaintances the most persistent, and strangers least. Being aged over 30, sending the victim unsolicited materials, and having an intimacy seeking or resentful motivation was also associated with greater persistence, as was the presence of psychosis.

Child abuse: practical application of autopsy, radiological, and microscopic studies

A 17-month-old male infant died at home. The infant's right arm was immobilized because of a humeral fracture 1 month earlier. The circumstances of death appeared unclear to the police investigators and a medicolegal autopsy was carried out. External examination revealed diffuse ecchymoses of varying color. Postmortem imaging was performed prior to autopsy (X-rays, multislice computed tomography [MSCT], and focused brain magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). These investigations revealed four rib fractures of varying ages, one of which was posterior. Cerebral and pericerebral traumatic lesions were also diagnosed: bilateral subdural hematomas, intraventricular, meningeal, and interpedoncular hemorrhages. In the abdomen, fresh blood was visible within the anterior abdominal wall and the mesenteric root. Autopsy and microscopic study confirmed these lesions. This case report illustrates the valuable assistance rendered by MSCT and MRI to diagnose abuse when a child has died in unclear circumstances.     

District Judges and Possession Proceedings

In this article, we draw on data obtained in interviews with District Judges about the factors which they say influence the exercise of their discretion in possession proceedings. Analysing the data set enabled us to create three ideal types of judicial decision—making which we have labelled 'liberal', 'patrician', and formalist'. We discuss the differences between each ideal type across five different variables: the District Judge role; approach; view of occupiers; the problem; behaviour of occupiers. Our data demonstrate a set of reasons to explain different approaches and outcomes between different District Judges (as well as the perhaps unlikely identification of a 'maverick' or 'idiosyncratic' style of judging). We conclude by suggesting on the basis of our data that, despite calls to structure or remove the discretion from District Judges, any such changes are unlikely to have much effect.