Cross-examination - handling the judge

Hi All,

In a final hearing, if I am cross-examining the other party (shudder), what rights does the judge have to cut me short on particular points / hurry things along?

We''ve got several days in court, and I would like to drill into certain matters where the devil is in the detail, but I can imagine the judge telling me he''s not interested and can I move it along (or similar).

Subject to sticking to the timetable, presumably I could say "this is important because I am establishing xyz point".

If he still tells me to move it along, would that potentially be opening up the possibility of appeal? Are there any other practical tips for how to manage judges in lengthy hearings?

Thanks!

The Judge has every right to hurry matters along - it''s their Court room and they are presiding over matters and therefore decide what''s appropriate and what''s not.

There was some fairly stiff guidance set out in Re C (A Child) (Procedural Requirements of a Part 25 Application) [2015] EWCA Civ 539 regarding the matter of a lititgant in person cross-examining the other side in Para 15:

Questions which either party want to ask of the other party, assuming that the representations are to be relied upon as evidence, should be asked through the judge where the questioner is a litigant in person so that inappropriate control is not exercised by one party over the other and irrelevant questions can be avoided.

Don''t be surprised if the Judge directs that any cross examining questions from you are done via him/her, so that you are not directly x-examining your ex.

It''s normal for FHs to be listed for three days, but that doesn''t mean that all those three days will be required. Don''t bank on having 3 full days in Court - it may not happen. I''ve been to 3 day listed FHs before and the matter has been decided by the judge by 3pm on day one.

PS - Litigants do not "manage" Judges - Judges manage the parties and the proceedings. One sure-fire way to annoy a Judge is to tell him/her how to do their job

Thanks RubyTuesday. This hearing is longer than 3 days, and the judge decided the length of the hearing therefore presumably they are saying that the matter warrants examination to a degree proportionate to the time allocated (allowing for reading time and all the usual bolt-ons)?

I''ve just skim-read that case you provided (thank you for it, I''ll read it properly later) and I have to say, ignoring the particular circumstances - limited English, Maggies etc - I think it is *outrageous* that LiPs would not be allowed to effectively cross-examine the other party. Justice denied indeed! How can you be expected to pass each question through the judge over several hours of evidence in chief? It would greatly take away from the momentum and (in my very limited experience, I will admit!) make it much harder to effectively examine the opposing party''s case. This is particularly so if, as in my case, the opposing party is represented and I am not. How can it be right to treat the parties in such a different way? So her counsel gets to grill me directly but I have to wrap my questions up in cotton wool and DX them in? I would only think this appropriate if opposing counsel also had to pass their questions via the judge. It''s going to be a slowwww hearing!

I would say that what needs to be split out here is ''effective'' cross-examination from ''inappropriate'' cross-examination. I would completely understand and support a judge intervening if I as a LiP were asking irrelevant or aggressive questions, or droning on about a subject that was going nowhere. But to not be able to build a picture in cross by asking "point a... point b... point c.... but this conflicts with your evidence at page d of your statement" etc. How will this work if it all goes via the judge? I don''t see it. And is LJ Ryder saying that irrelevant questions are only asked by LiPs and always avoided by counsel?! It''s insulting really!

PS I disagree about not managing the judge! They absolutely need to be managed... that''s what persuading them of your case is all about, although I''d love to have a competent barrister to do it for me!

Thing is...if you go with that attitude, you''ll put the judge''s back up.

You need to accept that this is how it is, and work with that.

Sorry Haha, I hope I don''t have the attitude you suspect!

I''m posting here for tips on how to conduct cross examination as a litigant in person over a several day hearing, a daunting prospect for me.

Unfortunately whilst there are a myriad of judgements out there to read, there aren''t many transcripts so you can see how barristers actually cross-examine.

So if I''m making a point that I consider important to my case, and the judge yawns and says "move it on please, it''s 3pm and I want to be off home", what do I say? "Please bear with me judge, this is important because of XYZ", or "I seek the learned judge''s permission to finish" or what?

I''m a litigant in person and on Wikivorce because the only thing I know about law is what I''ve seen on TV and that''s not going to get me far in the family courts. Frankly it''s not even clear to me what the structure of the hearing will be, and I''m responsible for the bundle and the timetable!

OK, it''s a family court and you''ll be LIP. You won''t be expected to act like a barrister. Also, family law encourages all parties to be reasonable and not confrontational.... It''s not like TV criminal courts.

Hopefully you should have any evidence in your court bundle. So it''s less about catching someone out, and more about verifying your own version of events.

If you know that they have misrepresented something important and worth a lot of money, then I''d get a solicitor to help.

The judge will not be interested in how they treated you or how they behaved during the marriage, unless it is materially relevant to the children or finances.... And even then, with finances, only if they have frittered away a fortune or misrepresented a large part of their finances (and you have solid proof)

That''s part of the trouble I have in figuring out how to approach the hearing - it''s a combined children and finance hearing, so this brings into play lots of matters that would not be relevant in either one or the other.