Oral submissions and courtroom procedure - Clear, logical, a...

Learning Outcomes

After studying this article, you will be able to structure oral submissions that are clear, logical, and persuasive for both judges and magistrates. You will understand the key requirements for effective signposting and argument organisation in applications and substantive hearings, and recognise common SQE2 pitfalls. You will be able to distinguish between different procedural contexts and adjust your approach to suit the audience and purpose.

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand how to structure and deliver oral submissions in formal hearings. Focus your revision on:

• Clarifying the purpose and procedural context of an oral submission or application in court.
• Arranging submissions in a logical, persuasive sequence using effective signposting.
• Maintaining audience engagement and assisting judicial note-taking.
• Adjusting structure and formality to suit specific court types and applications.
• Recognising and avoiding common errors in organisation and clarity under examination conditions.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. You are making a bail application before a District Judge in the Magistrates’ Court. What essential structural steps should your submission follow to ensure clarity and persuasiveness?
2. How can effective signposting within oral submissions assist your audience and improve your persuasiveness?
3. In a summary judgment application in the County Court, is it appropriate to open with a summary of all the facts, or should you begin differently? Why?
4. What is the difference between an "opening statement" and a "submission" in oral advocacy?

Introduction

Oral submissions are a core element of advocacy in both civil and criminal courts. A clear, well-organised, and persuasive structure is essential for effective communication, especially under exam and courtroom pressure. For SQE2, you must be able to construct logical arguments, signpost your submissions, and present them with authority, ensuring your presentation is tailored to the tribunal and compliant with all procedural expectations.

Building a Clear, Logical Structure

A successful oral submission is constructed using a logical framework that guides the tribunal through your argument. This is not merely a list of points—it is a coherent sequence focused on purpose and persuasiveness.

Key Term: oral submission
An organised, spoken presentation made to a court or tribunal, usually in support of an application or during a hearing, which advances a party’s argument or seeks a procedural order.

A recommended core structure for most submissions is as follows:

1. Introduction of yourself, your client, and the application/purpose.
2. Set out the legal basis and relief sought.
3. Summarise the key factual background or context—only as much as is necessary.
4. Identify and address the issues to be determined by the court.
5. Develop arguments for each issue in a logical sequence, supporting each with evidence or authority as appropriate.
6. Address anticipated arguments or objections by the other side, where relevant.
7. Conclude with a summary of why your application should succeed and restate the relief sought.

Signposting and Audience Engagement

Within your submission, use clear signposts to help the judge or magistrates follow your argument. Explicitly state when moving to a new topic (“Turning to the facts…”), summarise at intervals (“In summary, there are three reasons why…”), and announce your key submissions (“My first submission is…”).

Key Term: signposting
Verbal cues and transitional phrases used to signal the progression of an argument, guiding the court through each step of the submission.

This not only improves comprehension and note-taking but also creates a sense of authority and control.

Key Term: audience (in advocacy)
The judge, magistrates, or jury being addressed by the advocate; submissions must be attuned to their needs and expectations.

Key Term: submission (in court)
An argument or set of arguments put forward by an advocate to persuade the court to rule in their favour—may be oral or written.

Worked Example 1.1

Scenario: You are defending a debtor against an application for summary judgment in the County Court. What structure should your oral submission take?

Answer:
You should:

• Introduce yourself and the party you represent.
• State you are opposing the application and identify the relief sought (dismissal or adjournment).
• Briefly outline the key disputed facts (only those relevant to your argument).
• Identify the legal test for summary judgment and any procedural issues.
• Present your main reasons (in order of weight), supporting each with facts or authority.
• Point out weaknesses in the claimant’s evidence or arguments.
• Summarise, restate your position, and formally request the court’s order.

Procedural Context and Flexibility

The core structure above must be tailored to the context and procedural forum. Applications in the County Court or High Court require a formal, structured approach, while most Magistrates’ Court applications favour extreme conciseness and direct reference to statutory criteria.

For applications where time is limited or the matter is very simple (e.g., an adjournment), it may be appropriate to condense your structure. However, you must always provide introductory context, identify exactly what you seek, and support your position with at least one reason.

Worked Example 1.2

Scenario: Asked to oppose a prosecution application to withdraw a charge, how should you structure your brief response?

Answer:

• Address the court and introduce yourself.
• State your objection and the reasons (e.g., proper process not followed, prejudice to your client).
• Summarise the impact on your client.
• Conclude by asking the court to refuse the application.

Persuasiveness and Logical Flow

A logical structure aids persuasiveness by demonstrating the advocate’s control and giving the court a reasoned path to the order sought. Arrange points by importance, grouping the strongest arguments at the start and end. Avoid rambling, repetition, or contradicting yourself.

Always support assertions with a legal or factual basis. Avoid asserting "I believe" or using personal opinions—respect the convention of arguing "I submit" or "It is respectfully submitted".

Tailoring to the Tribunal

Consider your audience at all times. A District Judge may expect a meticulous, cross-referenced sequence; a lay bench may require plain English, shorter sentences, and greater signposting. For juries, focus on clarity and narrative.

Revision Tip

Regularly practise building your submissions around a short written 'plan' under timed conditions. Use a checklist of headings: Introduction, Background, Issues, Arguments, Conclusion. This will strengthen clarity under pressure.

Exam Warning

It is a frequent SQE2 error to omit either the introductory or closing summary, leaving submissions unclear or making it difficult for the tribunal to know exactly what is requested. Always clearly state the relief sought and summarise your main submissions at both the start and end of your argument.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The importance of a clear, logical, and persuasive structure for all oral submissions and applications.
• The standard sequence of: introduction, legal/factual context, identification of issues, structured argument, and clear conclusion/restatement of relief.
• Effective use of signposting to assist the court or tribunal.
• The need to tailor language, length, and structure to the audience and procedural context.
• Avoiding SQE2-examined pitfalls: omission of critical stages, excessive repetition, or lack of explicit relief sought.

Key Terms and Concepts

• oral submission
• signposting
• audience (in advocacy)
• submission (in court)