Moot's end
I didn't get through to the finals. :( I really thought I would. /egotism.
ETA:
I just asked for, and recived, judge's comments. They were:
"Strong in terms of organisation and technical
elements of skeleton, clear advocacy style although sometimes it
appeared that Counsel was reading. Difficulty answering some JI but
attempted all questions. Relied on case of Montila for first submission
that was from 2004 and was in relation to repealed law (DTA 1994, CJA
1988) rather than later case of R v W that challenged definition of
s.340 POCA 2002. Arguments less persuasive as a result"
Here is the response I want to send, but will not:
"Dear X,
Thank you for sending this on. I have to ask -- did I get any credit for my specific response to judicial intervention (and indeed, my submissions) that my reliance on Montila was not on any dictum it made on the repealed law, but specifically on the comments that were made about the current law about to come into force (I have also always been told in mooting that one will not lose credit for using an older case, provided it is done effectively)? and for my submissions on my opponents arguments wrt cash/non-cash property and the problem of differentiating between "living beyond one's means" and "inexplicably having a lot of cash"? or for my close-reading of the statutory language in my first submissions? or for the fact that I did, in fact, rely on R v W, just in relation to my second submissions?"
/temper tantrum
ETA:
I just asked for, and recived, judge's comments. They were:
"Strong in terms of organisation and technical
elements of skeleton, clear advocacy style although sometimes it
appeared that Counsel was reading. Difficulty answering some JI but
attempted all questions. Relied on case of Montila for first submission
that was from 2004 and was in relation to repealed law (DTA 1994, CJA
1988) rather than later case of R v W that challenged definition of
s.340 POCA 2002. Arguments less persuasive as a result"
Here is the response I want to send, but will not:
"Dear X,
Thank you for sending this on. I have to ask -- did I get any credit for my specific response to judicial intervention (and indeed, my submissions) that my reliance on Montila was not on any dictum it made on the repealed law, but specifically on the comments that were made about the current law about to come into force (I have also always been told in mooting that one will not lose credit for using an older case, provided it is done effectively)? and for my submissions on my opponents arguments wrt cash/non-cash property and the problem of differentiating between "living beyond one's means" and "inexplicably having a lot of cash"? or for my close-reading of the statutory language in my first submissions? or for the fact that I did, in fact, rely on R v W, just in relation to my second submissions?"
/temper tantrum