## **Learning Outcomes**

This article covers oral submissions and courtroom procedure—handling judicial interventions and judges’ questions, including:

- Planning, sequencing and signposting submissions so arguments remain coherent, focused and outcome-led
- Incorporating and answering judicial questions directly, with precise references to rules, evidence and authorities
- Managing interruptions and redirection from the bench without losing composure or momentum
- Applying courtroom etiquette and the duty of candour to assist the court and maintain professionalism
- Using concise language, accurate citations and efficient bundle navigation to support responsive answers
- Making brief, appropriate requests for time to check materials or take instructions where necessary
- Correcting your own errors promptly and clarifying judicial misunderstandings respectfully and precisely
- Handling time pressure by triaging the threshold rule, determinative facts and relief sought
- Returning to your structure after an intervention and delivering a clear, succinct conclusion
- Demonstrating courtesy to all participants, including litigants in person, and adjusting technique for remote hearings

## **SQE2 Syllabus**

For SQE2, you are required to understand the expectations for oral presentations and how to deal with judicial interventions, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Structuring oral submissions in both civil and criminal hearings.
- Answering and incorporating judicial questions and interventions during oral argument.
- Observing obligations of candour, accuracy, and assisting the court when answering direct questions.
- Recognising the impact of judicial guidance or redirection on your argument.
- Remaining composed, concise and focused amid judicial interruptions or time constraints.
- Maintaining courtroom etiquette when addressing different tribunals and parties, including litigants in person.
- Using skeleton arguments and signposting to keep submissions organised and responsive.
- Applying the overriding objective and relevant procedural rules (e.g., CPR and CrimPR) to frame submissions.
- Managing bundles and authorities efficiently, including page navigation and pinpoint references.
- Asking appropriately for time to locate an authority or to confer, while maintaining professional independence and candour.

## **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. What must you do if the judge asks you for a specific legal authority during your oral submission?
2. How should you respond if the judge appears to misunderstand a material point in your argument?
3. What actions are expected if the judge interrupts and directs you to a different issue than your planned structure?
4. What professional duty do you have if asked a question by the judge to which you do not know the immediate answer?

## **Introduction**

Clear, structured oral submissions are a core skill for both advocates and solicitors appearing in court. In SQE2, you must show that you can present arguments that are reasoned, responsive to the bench, and focused on the relevant legal issues. Judges frequently interrupt to clarify matters, ask about the law, test your reasoning, or direct submissions to specific points. Handling judicial interventions calmly and professionally is both an assessed skill and a realistic expectation of every court hearing.

Judicial intervention is not adversarial; it is more often a signal of the court’s priorities and a guide to what will decide the application or issue. The civil and criminal procedural codes support active judicial case management (see the CPR overriding objective and CrimPR case management duties). Your task is to assist the court to the proper administration of justice while advocating for your client’s position. Being prepared, succinct, and accurate, and adjusting your sequence to the court’s needs, are the habits that earn credit in assessment and confidence in practice.

> **Key Term: Oral submission**
> A structured argument or application delivered verbally to the court, setting out a party's position on facts, law, or procedure.
>
> **Key Term: Judicial intervention**
> Any question, direction, or observation made by the judge during oral submissions that requires acknowledgement or a response.

## Structuring Oral Submissions

Every oral submission should have a clear plan. Begin with a concise introduction stating your name, your client, the purpose of your submission, and the order or outcome you seek. Briefly state the proposed order of presentation—e.g., “I will address three points: first, the relevant law; second, the facts; third, why the court should grant the order.” Courts value clarity and brevity; use headlines, not paragraphs.

Use your skeleton argument and bundle to anchor structure and references. In an ad hoc application hearing, check the judge has the core materials; be specific—“Does the court have the witness statements of Ms Patel and Mr Wong, tabs 3 and 4?” In applications arising within a trial, assume the judge is aware of context and focus quickly on the legal threshold and the few determinative facts.

Move through your argument logically: relevant law or rule, key facts, and analysis. Apply the law to the facts directly; avoid abstract lectures. Refer to authorities with pinpoint citations and page references (e.g., “CPR 13.3(1)(a), bundle p.47,” or “R v Galbraith [1981] 73 Cr App R 124 at 127”). When pointing the court to documents, slow your pace, give the tab and page, and confirm the judge is on the page before you read or summarise.

Voice and body language matter. Speak clearly and at a measured pace. Maintain eye contact with the judge or bench. Avoid fillers (“um,” “er,” “right,” “OK,” “and so…”) and verbal tics. Watch the judge’s note-taking; pause briefly to allow notes to be made, and use short signposted segments. If appearing remotely, check audio is clear and that you pause longer between points to accommodate any slight delay.

> **Key Term: Signposting**
> The technique of verbally highlighting the structure of an argument, making it easier for both court and opponent to follow your reasoning.

### **Worked Example 1.1**

You are making an application to set aside default judgment. The judge interrupts: "Counsel, on what rule do you rely for this application?"

> **Answer:** Clearly and promptly provide the rule: "Yes, Judge, I rely on CPR 13.3, which gives the court discretion to set aside judgment in default where the defendant has a real prospect of success or there is some other good reason. May I direct you to the relevant wording at page 47 of the bundle?"

## Responding to Judicial Interventions and Questions

Judicial interventions are routine and should be met as opportunities—not obstacles. When interrupted, stop speaking immediately and listen to the judge’s full question or point. Pause to consider your answer, and acknowledge the intervention respectfully (“Sir,” “Madam,” “Your Honour,” or “Judge” according to the forum). If the question is wide, clarify scope before answering: “May I confirm, Judge, you are asking about the test under s. 76 PACE rather than s. 78?” Then answer concisely and directly, applying law to the facts and referencing the bundle.

Answer the question asked. Do not deflect or postpone unless essential. If the judge’s question is outside your planned sequence, adjust. It is often more persuasive to address the judge’s priority now than insist on your order. If you genuinely need a document to answer accurately, ask for permission: “Judge, may I have a moment to check the authority?” If you do not immediately know the answer, admit this candidly: “Judge, I do not have that authority to hand; if the court permits, I can locate it now or provide it after the short adjournment.” Never guess or mislead. Your duty to the court includes drawing attention to relevant authorities or procedural irregularities likely to have a material effect on the outcome.

Keep your tone neutral. Avoid advocacy clichés and moralising (“plainly,” “obviously,” “clearly” without basis). Use precise language and avoid overstatement. Where an answer could be sensitive, preface briefly and neutrally: “The best authority I rely on is X; it indicates Y at paragraph Z.”

> **Key Term: Assisting the court**
> The advocate’s continuing duty to support the court with honest, complete, and helpful explanations of the law, procedure, or facts.
>
> **Key Term: Judicial courtesy**
> The advocate’s obligation to address the judge with respect and composure at all times, even when challenged or directed in unexpected ways.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

During a contested application, the judge asks, "Can you take me to the part of your client’s evidence that supports this assertion?"

> **Answer:** Calmly reply: "Certainly, Judge. If I may refer you to paragraph 6 of Mr Ahmed’s witness statement, at page 15 in the bundle—there, he sets out precisely when and how the payment was made."

### **Worked Example 1.3**

In a criminal PACE application, the judge asks, “Which case supports your submission that the issue is one of reliability rather than admissibility?”

> **Answer:** “Judge, the leading case is R v Horncastle [2009] EWCA 964 on hearsay reliability principles, though admissibility is controlled by the statutory gateways. I do not have the pinpoint paragraph to hand. May I have one minute to locate the exact passage, or alternatively provide the reference immediately after the break?”

## Managing Redirection and Time Pressure

Judges may direct you to address an issue you did not expect, or accelerate your summary if time is short. Accept any change of topic or instruction promptly and move immediately to the point requested. Acknowledge the instruction—“Of course, Judge. Turning then to proportionality…” Give your best point first. Summarise your top two arguments, each in one or two sentences, supported by one rule or authority and one fact. If the judge is satisfied, do not repeat yourself. If time allows, return briefly to any essential argument left unfinished and signpost the return: “Unless the court has further questions, I will briefly complete my second point on causation.”

When time is limited, triage. Prioritise:

- The threshold/decision rule (e.g., CPR 3.4 or s. 78 PACE).
- The determinative fact(s) that meet that rule.
- The concise reasons why your order should be made.

Avoid reading long passages. Use pinpoint references and paraphrase fairly. If genuinely unable to cover a topic, ask courteously for permission either to file a short note or to address it briefly at the end.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

In a costs application, halfway through your argument, the judge interjects: "Counsel, let’s focus on proportionality—what is your best point on that?"

> **Answer:** Respond directly and succinctly: "Sir, my primary point on proportionality is that the costs incurred are reasonable given the complexity and quantum involved. The total costs are a small proportion of the sum in issue."

### **Worked Example 1.5**

At a remote civil case management conference, the judge says, “We have five minutes—what are the essential directions you seek?”

> **Answer:** “Madam, three directions: first, standard disclosure by 4 January; second, witness statements limited to liability by 1 February; third, a one-day liability-only trial window in March. These align with the overriding objective and will narrow the live issues.”

### **Exam Warning**

> If you fail to answer a judge’s question directly or ignore a redirection, you may lose marks for structure and responsiveness. Always pause, listen, and respond directly, even if it means altering your planned sequence.

## Correcting Errors and Misunderstandings

If you realise you have made a factual or legal error during your submission—especially if the judge signals confusion or challenge—correct yourself immediately and politely. This demonstrates integrity and protects your client. If the judge misstates a material fact or rule and that could affect your client, clarify respectfully, without implying fault.

Examples include misquoting a time limit (e.g., CPR time frames), misidentifying the applicable test (e.g., “no case to answer” under Galbraith, proportionality in costs, or reliability thresholds), or misstating chronology. Use neutral phrasing: “Apologies, Judge, I misspoke,” or “May I clarify one point on the dates?”

### **Worked Example 1.6**

The judge says, "I’m not sure that's what the rule states, Counsel." On reviewing, you realise you misspoke.

> **Answer:** Promptly correct yourself: "Apologies, Judge, I misspoke. The correct position is that the time limit is 14 days under CPR 23.7, not 21 days as I previously indicated."
>
> If the judge misunderstands something material and this could affect your client, politely clarify: "Sir, if I may, my previous submission was that service occurred on 10th May, not the 20th."

### **Worked Example 1.7**

The judge notes, “Your submission on hearsay assumes admissibility wherever reliability is established.” You recognise the issue.

> **Answer:** “Your Honour, to clarify: reliability is central, but admissibility remains subject to the statutory gateways and interests of justice tests. My submission is that both are satisfied here—reliability on the contemporaneous business record, and admissibility under the statutory provision, with no unfairness arising.”

## Professional Conduct When Answering Judicial Questions

You are professionally required to assist the court, act with independence, and never mislead. This means:

- Upholding the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
- Acting with honesty and integrity and maintaining public trust and confidence.
- Retaining independence even under client pressure.
- Encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion in your conduct and language.
- Acting in each client’s best interests while meeting your primary duty to the court.

In practice:

- Address factual or legal errors promptly; do not conceal difficulties.
- If asked a question you cannot answer, state so candidly and explain how you will find or deliver the answer—by consulting the bundle, skeleton, or authority, or seeking further instructions, as appropriate.
- Draw the court’s attention to relevant cases, statutory provisions, or procedural irregularities of which you are aware and which may materially affect the outcome.
- Do not misuse or tamper with evidence, and never influence the substance of evidence.
- Maintain courtesy to all, including litigants in person and McKenzie Friends. Where the other party is unrepresented, explain references plainly and avoid taking unfair advantage of procedural knowledge.

> **Key Term: Professional candour**
> The advocate's obligation to be truthful and clear with the court, even when that involves admitting error or lack of knowledge.

### **Worked Example 1.8**

You face a litigant in person who struggles to follow references. The judge asks, “Can you explain your point without jargon?”

> **Answer:** “Of course, Judge. My point is that the rule requires the claim to be struck out if it has no real prospect of success. Here, the documents show the contract ended last year, and the claim seeks relief that the court cannot grant after termination. That’s why we say the claim should be dismissed.”

## Returning to Your Argument After Intervention

After responding to an intervention, return to your sequence with a brief signpost—“If I may continue, Sir…” or “Turning back to my second point…”. Restate the main submission or order you seek before finishing, and ensure the court hears your concise conclusion: the governing rule or test, the determinative facts, and the relief sought. Thank the judge for questions and assistance. This demonstrates composure and ensures your key points are captured in the judge’s note.

To prevent losing your place, bookmark where you were before the intervention: mentally label points as “Point 1: threshold rule; Point 2: facts; Point 3: relief.” After the intervention, state, “Resuming Point 2…” and continue. Maintain consistency between your skeleton and oral submissions.

### **Worked Example 1.9**

After several questions on authority, you need to finish.

> **Answer:** “Thank you, Judge. Returning to my core submission: under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the particulars disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; the pleaded facts, even if proved, do not establish duty or loss. The appropriate order is strike out with standard directions and costs.”

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Oral submissions require clear structure, concise language, and logical sequencing anchored to rules, facts, and outcomes sought.
- Judicial interventions and questions are to be welcomed; always pause, listen, and respond directly and respectfully, adjusting your sequence to the court’s priorities.
- If asked for authority or evidence, direct the court to the precise page or passage; if unavailable, candidly explain and request brief time to locate it.
- Correct yourself immediately if you identify an error; clarify judicial misunderstandings politely and precisely, using neutral phrasing.
- Manage redirection and time pressure by triaging to the threshold rule, the determinative facts, and your best reason for the order; avoid unnecessary reading or repetition.
- Maintain professionalism at all times: assist the court, act with independence, and do not mislead; observe equality, diversity, and inclusion and show courtesy to all participants.
- Use signposting and skeleton arguments to structure submissions and maintain coherence after interventions; keep bundle navigation precise.
- Eliminate filler words and adopt measured pace and tone; adjust for remote hearings by pausing and confirming references.
- Conclude clearly with the rule, facts, and relief sought; thank the court and confirm there are no further points.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Oral submission
- Judicial intervention
- Signposting
- Assisting the court
- Judicial courtesy
- Professional candour

Oral submissions and courtroom procedure - Handling judicial interventions and questions