Trial by student...

BLOOD-spattered trainers, a missing phone and a victim who claims she was beaten up on her way home. It’s not much to go on and would probably make the most case-hardened barrister tear up his brief in frustration.

But budding lawyers from York College hope their mooting skills and this most circumstantial of circumstantial evidence will be enough to convince twelve good men and true.

While other A-level law students brush up their duties of care and motives for murder ahead of exams, the team will be in Sheffield Crown Court hoping to prove their legal knowledge, not just to tutors but a real judge and jury.

They are taking part in the final of a mock trial competition against Silverdale High School, Sheffield in the case of Q v Sales. Joe Sales stands accused of assault and filming his actions on a mobile. Sales has been arrested but there is no sign of his phone. He’s adamant it has been lost and says he was nowhere near the scene at the time.

York’s lead counsel, Aiden Ballanger, believes he was and apart from the attack reckons he’s also guilty of happy slapping. To prove it he has forensic evidence; a pair of trainers with the victim’s blood stains on the soles.

No insists the defence, that was caused much earlier when Sales trod in a pool of nose bleed at the school playground.

But the prosecution’s evidence seems tenuous and Aiden’s team will have their work cut out if they are to gain a conviction.

“It’s quite a difficult case because the defence have a lot of angles, such as the phone being missing and the blood issue in the playground,” says Aiden.

“We know someone heard the name Joe being shouted, but the defence will argue it was misheard and actually it was the word Yo.”

Fortunately there is a second witness, a police officer, and the case will probably hang on his evidence.

Meanwhile the defence only have to prove reasonable doubt and will call on the defendant and his cousin in their bid for acquittal.

“My role is to build up our points and try to convince the jury that what our witnesses say is true,” says Aiden.

“Then I will reaffirm everything they said and hopefully give the defence a difficult job to do.”

Following Aiden will be Junior Counsel, Matthew Stubbings. He is responsible for cross-examining the witnesses.

“The defendant has pleaded not guilty, but he didn’t take his usual route home and we have witness accounts and the blood on his shoe,” says Matthew. “We’ve got a number of different lines of attack and if one fails we can go for another, so I’m pretty confident.”

Ahead of the mock trial, the students are discussing our often creaky, but hopefully adequate legal system and their comments are interesting, a mix of radical and traditional, some of them perhaps surprising for teenagers.

Opinions over the jury system divided the students most. Jessica Herrington thinks the biggest problem is that jurors can be too easily led.

“They can be influenced by the media or internet and previous cases are so accessible that it doesn’t take a lot for jurors to have an opinion. But not one formed from the case they have heard,” she says.

“Surely the whole point of a jury is they are supposed to come to an unbiased opinion.”

Over the years academics have often argued that jurors rarely contribute equally to the decision-making process; some even remain silent.

It is not only intimidation in the court room that is a problem. Group dynamics within a jury discussing a contentious issue could even pervert the course of justice.

So is a jury of 12 a problem and is that too many people to debate a case fairly?

Jessica thinks so. “Surely a judge who has been qualified for years is better placed to decide a man’s fate. How can you put that in the hands of 12 people who have so many biased influences put on them?”

Junior Counsel Matthew isn’t convinced.

“It’s our duty to put our point across to avoid a guilty man walking free. But that might not be society’s verdict and that’s why we have a jury made up of ordinary people. “You want their view, not judges from the middle or upper class, it’s the most democratic process.”

However the academic debate will have to wait for another day. Like it or not, the York students will have a jury to convince.

It won’t be easy. The team are prosecuting and the burden of proof will be tricky with such flimsy evidence.

“It’s difficult to put an idea into the jury’s mind when you’re not sure yourself,” says Jessica. “This is where you have to put all your faith and belief into your duty to get a conviction.

“All the defence has to say is there is reasonable doubt and tell the jury it has a duty to give a ‘not guilty’ verdict.”

One thing the students have going for them is an impressive track record. Last March they took on Silverdale High in a debate against the death penalty and won handsomely.

At the time they had three Norwegian members who tutor Clive Broadley says put forward a compelling case, one that included a reference to the recent massacre in their country.

“They brought a very interesting and moving angle on the debate because they talked about Anders Breivik on trial,” says Clive. “Yet they maintained that even though he had done this horrendous crime, they didn’t want capital punishment to be reintroduced.”

The death penalty may have been outlawed in this country since 1965, but it continues to divide opinion. The last opinion poll was conducted two years ago by You Gov and revealed that 51 per cent of those polled wanted the death penalty back.

But despite demand for a debate, the subject was last in front of Parliament in 1998 during the passage of the Human Rights Act. It was rejected by 158 votes.

Traditionally the older generation remain in favour of capital punishment but although he helped to win the debate against the death penalty, 18-year-old Rowan Brooks says there might be exceptions.

“It’s still a very relevant debate to have and a lot of western democracies continue to practise the death penalty,” he says. “If enough people are supporting the idea to create an argument, I think it should be considered.”

But surely that would make us no better than the criminals we seek to punish? Do we really have the right to take the life of another, however evil they may appear?

Should anyone be made to pay the ultimate price?

“For the most part no, but where there is a genuine public safety concern, I believe capital punishment should be on the table. I think killing someone who has committed murder is acceptable.”

One of the hardest lessons the students will have to learn is that sometimes you have to argue a case you don’t believe in.

“It’s not your decision; you are representing your client and if he maintains his innocence it’s your duty to present evidence to the court,” says Clive.

“If I think he’s guilty and the jury doesn’t, that’s what the ordinary person thinks and maybe I was wrong.”

On Wednesday the decision may be academic but it will be made by a jury in front of a high court judge and will surely seem real to Aiden and his team.

The trial promises to be quite an occasion. York College is one of only a few educational institutions in the city to offer law at A-Level, but rarely can they have put their students through such a scenario.

“I hope the judge doesn’t treat us lightly and we get the whole court experience,” says Rowan. “I think it will be intimidating but it will help prepare us for a career in court.

“We’ll also find out if we have the necessary mettle.”