This video shows an entirely fictional 'mock' trial, with all parts played by teenagers. The violent attack shown is fictional and dramatized.
BAILIFF:All rise.
NARRATOR:'This is the trial of the Queen, versus Sales.'
CLERK:How do you plead, guilty, or not guilty?
JO SALES:Not guilty.
NARRATOR:'The case is fictional.'
FEMALE:Loser!
ALEX:You're a loser, Farley!
NARRATOR:'But the battle between prosecution and defence is very real.'
JO SALES:I did not walk through Hillside Park that day.
ALEX:You better be getting a good shot of this!
MISS AZENGA:Is it even possible that you mistook what Alex actually said?
FARLEY JOSEPH:I definitely heard Jo.
NARRATOR:'Guiding the students through the trial are two teams of expert barristers.'
LAWRENCE POWER:It's critical that the jury get that.
MR. BURN:Did you find anything on these sneakers when you examined them?
JANE NOEL:Yes I detected a small amount of blood on the sole of the right trainer.
NARRATOR:'Taking the law into their own hands they are - Young Legal Eagles.'
NARRATOR:'Previously, on Young Legal Eagles. Jo Sales was called to the stand by the defence team.'
MISS AZENGA:And Miss Sales, have you ever been arrested before?
JO SALES:No, never. That's why I was really upset when the police officer came to arrest me.
MISS AZENGA:And did you tell anyone about your mobile phone going missing?
JO SALES:Yeah, I told my cousin, Bobbi Forward.
NARRATOR:'And faced some tough questioning from the prosecution.
MR. BURN:I put it to you that you deliberately dumped your mobile phone.
JO SALES:I did not, that's incorrect.
JUDGE:Would the defence like to call any further witnesses?
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Yes, can we call Bobbi Forward?
NARRATOR:'The second, and final defence witness in this case, is Jo Sales' cousin, Bobbi Forward, played by Catherine Kalloco.'
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Could you state your name for the court, please?
BOBBI FORWARD:My name is Bobbi Forward.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And your age?
BOBBI FORWARD:17 years old.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And your occupation?
BOBBI FORWARD:Student.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:What is your relationship to the defendant, Jo Sales?
BOBBI FORWARD:I'm Jo's Cousin.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And where was you on 1st March?
BOBBI FORWARD:I was at home.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And where is home?
BOBBI FORWARD:I've been living with Jo, in her house, for the past three years.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And, what were you doing at home?
BOBBI FORWARD:I was playing my Gamebox.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And can you remember what time Jo came in from school at?
BOBBI FORWARD:Not really.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Did you notice anything about her?
BOBBI FORWARD:Like, 15 minutes later, I heard she was upset in the kitchen. So I asked her what was wrong, and she told me that she'd lost her phone.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And how did she seem to you?
BOBBI FORWARD:She was really upset.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:No further questions your Honour. If you'd like to stay there, my learned friends may have some more questions for you.
NICOLA MCKINNEY:When you are cross-examining Bobbi, the way you treat her is based on why you think her evidence needs to be challenged. You're not saying that she's making a mistake, you're saying she's lying. I think you'll agree that that's the main point you need to make.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:That's the main point that…
NICOLA MCKINNEY:Yeah.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:I'm going to challenge her on, that she's her cousin, you know? They clearly concocted a story to cover for her.
TIM SALISBURYDon't be scared of getting a no, because that's why you have a live witness. When you're dealing with credibility, you ask them the question, they say no, and it's whether the jury believe that no.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Can you confirm Jo Sales state of mind as she came home?
BOBBI FORWARD:She was alright when she came home, but a little while after, she was upset.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Did you know why she was so upset? Did you ask her?
BOBBI FORWARD:She'd lost her phone.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:And that's what she told you?
BOBBI FORWARD:Yeah.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:And, is it possible to replace the mobile phone?
BOBBI FORWARD:Yes it is.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Then why was she so upset?
BOBBI FORWARD:Because all the pictures you have, all the things you'd have on your mobile phone, you can't really replace that, but you can replace the phone, but not with the memories you have on it.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Memories? Videos of an attack maybe?
BOBBI FORWARD:No.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:How do you know?
BOBBI FORWARD:Because I know Jo pretty well, since I've been living with her, I don't think she's like that whatsoever.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:What would you say is worse? Being in trouble with the police or losing a mobile phone?
BOBBI FORWARD:Being in trouble with the police.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So in fact, that's the real reason because she knew that she'd done a bad thing.
BOBBI FORWARDShe would have been upset earlier on if she knew she was going to be in trouble with the police, but she was alright when she first came home. And then later on she got upset realising that she'd lost her phone.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So are you saying that she knew that she was going to be in trouble with the police?
BOBBI FORWARD:No, if she did know she was going to be in trouble with the police, she would have been upset from when she entered the house, but she wasn't.
JAQUELINE CASPI:Now she's arguing, effectively, with the witness.
NICOLA MCKINNEY:Yeah.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Is there any way that Jo Sales could be lying to you?
BOBBI FORWARD:I don't think my cousin will ever lie to me to be honest.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:In your statement, you said that Jo was wearing an old pair of Feets. Is that correct?
BOBBI FORWARD:Yes.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:What was the significance of including the shoe brand?
BOBBI FORWARD:Jo just normally wears them, because they're old pairs, so I just kind of remember it.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So you remember details quite clearly that day?
BOBBI FORWARD:Nothing really traumatic happened for me to remember it, but I do remember some details yeah.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:The incident happened on 1st March, And your statement to the police was made two days later on 3rd March.
BOBBI FORWARD:Mm-hm.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So two days difference.
BOBBI FORWARD:Yes.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So what's your relationship with Jo like?
BOBBI FORWARD:I think we're quite close.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So you wouldn't like to see her in trouble?
BOBBI FORWARD:No I wouldn't.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Life at home would be pretty hard for you if you were giving evidence against her, let's say?
BOBBI FORWARD:In this case, it wouldn't be that hard, because I wouldn't be giving evidence against her, because I know I would not lie on behalf of my cousin, so everything we’re saying here today is truthful.
LAWRENCE POWER:For the prosecution now to get home with this witness, they're going to have to say she's a liar.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So you wouldn't like to see her in trouble?
BOBBI FORWARD:No I wouldn't.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:And in fact, that's why you're here, today. To lie, to protect her.
LAWRENCE POWER:There we go, she's had to do that.
BOBBI FORWARD:Not to lie to protect her, to protect her by telling the truth.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:In your statement, you said you were playing on your Gamebox, that's correct?
BOBBI FORWARD:Mm-hm.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So you were concentrating on the game?
BOBBI FORWARD:Partially concentrating, that's how I still remember what shoes she had on when she came in.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So how can you be so sure of details, you know, you say you think you remember things quite clearly, if you were playing on your Gamebox?
BOBBI FORWARD:I said before, I wasn't fully concentrating on it.
LAWRENCE POWER:She's so confident now as a witness, she doesn't feel like she's being hurt by any questions, and hurt by any answers.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:So you said that you wouldn't like to see her in trouble with the police?
BOBBI FORWARD:Yes.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:And that's why you're here today?
BOBBI FORWARD:That's why I'm here today, to help her by telling the truth to the jury to help prove that she is innocent.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Thank you, I have no further questions.
JUDGE:Thank you very much, and if you'd like to step down now, thank you very much.
NARRATOR:'After the prosecution and defence teams have questioned their witnesses, they then sum up all the evidence they have raised during the trial in their closing statements.'
NICOLA MCKINNEY:The real point of the closing speech, is what conclusions do you want them to draw from the evidence that you've heard. So… you may have… highlighted the strengths and the weaknesses in the opening, They've then heard the evidence, what conclusions do they draw from those strengths and from those weaknesses as a result.
NICOLA MCKINNEY:This is the point where the passion can come in a bit, I think you need energy and you need conviction in your case.
TIM SALISBURY:You're her advocate relating it back to the opening speeches
TIM SALISBURY:at the beginning of this trial. I told you that we would show you this. And that this would be said. Now you've seen that and it's a matter for you, whether you believe the prosecution's case or the defence explanation for that?
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Your Honour, members of the jury. The defendant, Jo Sales, is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, upon Farley Joseph, in that she filmed this attack on her mobile phone, in Hillside Park, and was in fact present at the attack on Farley Joseph. And there are three main things in which prove the guilt of the defendant Jo Sales.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:The first thing is that Farley Joseph said that Alex was shouting the name Jo. Shouting, suggesting that she did hear quite clearly. Also, Jo Sales shoes were identified at the scene, this is the second point to consider. Remember how in evidence, Farley recalls dark blue Sneakers being worn.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Remember, these shoes were identified at the scene. The victim's blood has been found on these shoes, through forensic testing by Jane Noel. They've also been found at the defendant Jo Sales' house. Even Jo Sales herself has admitted to wearing these shoes this day. Ask yourselves, members of the jury.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Why would she change her shoes just to walk home in? Shoes she was so comfortable to wear the whole day at school. Now members of the jury, the defence would have you believe a series of improbable events that happened on that day. They would have you believe that Jo Sales lost her mobile phone.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:That Jo Sales happened to step in blood at the nosebleed, and that Farley misheard. And despite the fact that Alex Jordan had told her plans for the attack, they say she wasn't involved. Members of the jury, she was already involved when he told her the plans. However, all of this evidence relies heavily on the statement of Bobbi Forward.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Remember, they're cousins, they've lived together for three years. Some would say they are practically sisters. Now remember, the incident happened on the 1st March And Bobbi's statement to the police was made on 3rd March, two days later. Now members of the jury, I ask yourself to question, how reliable can she be?
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Now the Crown however says, that Jo Sales dumped her mobile phone on the way home from filming an attack on Farley Joseph, in Hillside Park. Now remember, the expert forensic said this blood found on the shoe is one in one billion chance that it was not of Farley Joseph or related persons.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Now members of the jury, if the Crown could take you again, back to Jo Sales' cross-examination. Jo Sales said she was shocked that Alex was involved, and attacked Farley Joseph. The Crown disputes this. She was already aware that he was capable when he told her his plans. Now lastly, we have the nosebleed of Farley Joseph.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Remember how in evidence, Farley said she was careful to catch the drops of blood. Remember, Jo shouted to Farley, suggesting that there was a fair distance between them. Now ask yourselves, how likely is it, that Jo stepped in blood at that time if there was such a distance between them?
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Now, if there was no way that blood got on the ground, which is what Farley says, there is only one possible explanation. And this in fact, is the only reason. Jo Sales was at the attack, and indeed filmed this attack on her mobile phone. If you also believe this, the Crown would urge you to find the defendant, Jo Sales, guilty.
CROWN PROSECUTOR #1:Thank you, that's the case for the prosecution.
JUDGE:Thank you very much.
LAWRENCE POWER:I think she did very well. That last segment about the blood in the playground was very persuasive to me. I thought she presented that well.
JUDGE:Miss Marshall.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Members of the jury. The prosecution have tried to prove that the defendant was at the scene of the crime. Evidence for this is that Farley Joseph heard the name Jo. However… Farley Joseph admits that she had an MP3 player in her ears at the time. With music going on in the background, how can she be sure what she actually heard?
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Also, Alex Jordan, Farley's ex-boyfriend, has been known to use slang terms - "yo". How is Farley Joseph sure that she heard Jo, instead of Yo? Farley Joseph also states that she saw the Sneakers of the fourth person who she assumed to be filming the attack. However, even though Farley Joseph states that these Sneakers
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:are not common amongst Hillside students, PC Russell disagrees with this. He says that they are common, and they are popular. So how can we be sure this was Jo Sales? It could have been any other student amongst the school? The blood found on Jo Sales' Sneakers, was Farley Joseph's.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:This is not to be disputed. However, when and where the blood and Sneakers come into contact is the question. Farley Joseph had a nosebleed in the playground earlier. Jo Sales was in the playground earlier. Jo Sales called over to ask Farley Joseph to ask if she was OK. However, as she was having a nosebleed,
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:she ran across the playground without hearing her. The forensic evidence proves that we cannot tell whether the blood was found on the shoes at the playground, or at the scene of the crime. Finally, Jo Sales was assumed to have also filmed the attack on her mobile phone. However, to this day, the phone has still not been found.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:And so how can we be sure that any filming, let alone that Jo did it, took place?
JAQUELINE CASPI:She's used the fact that there's no mobile phone as a strength for the defence. And a weakness for the prosecution.
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:Members of the jury. Jo Sales has never been involved with the police before. She walked home on the main road, she did not walk through Hillside Park. She was wearing her Feets, and her cousin Bobbi Forward confirms this. PC Russell found the Sneakers in Jo Sales' home. If Jo did take part in this attack,
MEMBER OF THE DEFENCE #1:surely she'd have done a better job at hiding the shoes that had the blood on them. Jo Sales is innocent in this case. This case is based on if, buts and why - not pure facts. I ask you to find the defendant not guilty.
NARRATOR:'On the next episode of Young Legal Eagles. The judge sums up the case.'
JUDGE:…place all questions of evidence and fact are for you alone to decide.
NARRATOR:'And the jury deliberate the verdict. But will the find Jo Sales guilty, or not guilty?'
JURY MEMBER #1:Well don't forget, Jo hasn't had a criminal record or any-- she's never been involved in any type of crime.
A live criminal justice case based on a Joint Enterprise crime committed by a teenager, with all parts played by teenagers.
The second defence witness, Jo Sales' cousin Bobby Forwood, is called to the stand.
She is questioned by the defence barristers then cross-examined by the prosecution barristers.
This is interspersed with comments from the expert barristers on the performances of the young barristers and Bobby Forwood.
This segment is followed by the closing statements from both teams of young barristers.
Teacher Notes
Pupils could be asked to predict whether the defendant will be found guilty or not guilty.
As a follow up activity, pupils could be asked to design their own ideal justice system explaining any differences to the current British system.
How were criminals judged before trial by jury was introduced?
Curriculum Notes
This clip will be relevant for teaching classes about law and justice in the UK. It will be suitable for ages 11-16.
Suitable for: KS3, GCSE/KS4 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and National 3, National 4 and National 5 in Scotland.
More from Young Legal Eagles:
Mock criminal trial (1/6) - Case and plea video
A criminal case is introduced with the teenage barristers, their expert mentors, the judge, jury and courtroom. We hear the prosecution’s opening statement and are introduced to the main players.
Mock criminal trial (2/6) - Opening statement for the prosecution and first witness video
The victim of the criminal case, Farley Joseph, gives her testimony and is cross-examined. The crime is reconstructed and expert interviews are shown.
Mock criminal trial (3/6) - Court reporting and further witnesses. video
The criminal case continues with the second prosecution witness. There are interviews with a court artist, forensic scientist and a court reporter along with an explanation of contempt of court.
Mock criminal trial (4/6) - Cross-examination of defence witness. video
The judge in this criminal case introduces the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ concept and the defendant, Jo Sayles, is cross-examined.
Mock criminal trial (6/6) - Verdict and sentencing. video
The judge carries out her summing up and the jury are sent from court to make their decision, before the verdict is given. The participants comment on their own and each other’s performance. The process is concluded.
