Theory of the Case

A logical persuasive story of what really

happened
Mauet & McCrimmon, 2nd Edn

The most plausible explanation when you

Take

all of the undisputed evidence

Take all of the disputed evidence that is accepted
at the trial after comparing each partys evidence

Theory - Sources

Charges
Show Cause Letter
Show Cause Reply
Prosecution and Accused Employees Documents
Photographs
Interview Statements (if presented as evidence)
The chronology
The applicable law

Theory of the case

The Steps

Review the elements (In Charges)

Decide whether each element is proved through
available witnesses and exhibits
Determine what facts are in dispute (see Show Cause
Letter, Show Cause Reply and DI Notice)
What contradictory facts are available to the other side
Assess the each partys witnesses and exhibits that it will
present
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each partys
case

Theory - Structure
Identify the main issues
What stand or position is taken by each
side on the main issues?
What are each sides best points in support
of the stance it has taken on the main issue
Identify the opposing theory (or argument)
of each side

Theory - Conclusion
THEN:

Determine which side has a logical and

persuasive story of what really happened

The conclusion becomes the basis for

youre the decision / report

Examination in Chief

Purpose
Get

an account of the witnesses story

In a clear and logical progression

Examiners aim
Facilitate

court

the unfolding of the story for the

Evidence of witness

Elements of the sides case

Which facts regarding which element does this
witness have knowledge of?
Witness Chronology
Identify the topics for each witness
Exhibits
Consider organisational charts or other visual
aids to examine the the story

Witnesses
Introduction of the witness to the panel
(credibility)
What is the witnesses connection to the
case?
Try to visualise the scene or event

Open questions

Allows the witness to tell their story in a narrative

form
Allows the chairman to hear the story without
interruption
The focus is on the witness
The witness sounds more credible
What happened at the board meeting between
yourself and Mr Tan on the 10th October last
year? (Assuming that the examiner had laid the
foundation that a meeting took place)

Closed questions
Questioner has more control
Focuses on a single item or subject
Limits the scope of the answer

What

time did you leave the board meeting

that afternoon?
Where did you go immediately after you left
that meeting?

Relevance and leading

Relevance:
Questions

must bear directly or indirectly on the facts

in issue. The questioner asks himself How will I use
this answer to this question in my submission?

Leading:
W

questions: Who, what, when, which, where, why

How

Cross Examination (1)

Aim

Control the opponents witness

Deny them the opportunity of:
1.
2.
3.

Volunteering information you dont want

Supplying information that is not sought
Repeating their evidence in chief

Cross Examination (2)

Objective
Obtain facts or concessions that advance
the questioners case
Obtain facts or concessions that damage
the opponents case
Damage the credibility of the witness
Damage the credit of the witness

Cross Examination (3)

Disputed facts

Must cross-examine on disputed material facts

If not challenged, treated as not disputed
Use put questions to state conclusions for the
panels consideration
I

put to you that you injured him

I put to you that you did not get any approval for the
leave

Cross Examination (4)

Contents of questions
Essential elements of each sides case
Facts in issue from Show Cause reply and
Charges
What parties have to prove in order to win the
case
Points that each party will integrate into and
support the case theory
Logical and does not defy common sense

Re examination
Aim
Reconcile discrepancies between EIC and
CE
Clarify uncertainties arising from CE
Explain evidence in CE which is damaging
to your case or the witnesses credit

Re examination
Rules Cannot
Lead new evidence (i.e. questions not
touched on in CE)
Ask leading questions

Re examination
Technique
Refer the witness to what he/she said in
CE
Invite the witness to clarify / explain the
answer that they gave

Submissions Objective
To persuade the Chairman accept each
partys case
To summarise the facts of the case
To link the facts with the relevant law
To apply the facts and the law to support
your theory of the case

Submissions
Ingredients
Identify the documents, witnesses and
exhibits
Summary of the factual context
Deal with the undisputed facts
Identify the issues to be decided
Establish the facts from the conflicting
evidence

Submissions
Ingredients (cont.d)

Analyse the evidence of the witnesses rely on

presumptions and available inferences
Deal with the documentary evidence
Identify corroborating evidence
Relate the applicable law to the facts at hand
Draw conclusions from the facts and the law