in this video i'm going to give you a tip about cross-examination which you might think
won't be of any relevance to you because you'll never be cross-examining anybody
but if you bring a claim for example to the wrc
or perhaps the residential tenancies board or somewhere else where you may be tempted
wisely or otherwise to represent yourself then this simple tip in relation to cross-examination
might be useful i read a book there recently called devil's advocate i'd strongly recommend it
and it's written by queen's council from the uk i think his name is ian larmor another 100
just can't remember the name off top my head very good book
strongly recommend it devil's advocate in the book though he says in relation to cross-examination
if you can avoid this do in other words you do not cross-examine for the sake of cross-examining you
only cross-examine if it's in your interest and cross-examination can go badly wrong because by
definition you're going to be cross-examining or questioning somebody who is opposed to your
version of vets who is supporting the other side because it's a cross-examination this person
is giving evidence for the other argument the other side of the story that you're involved in
so the status quo should be according to this queen's council i think he's right
is not to cross examine unless you absolutely have to sometimes it's essential but in this video
i'm watching a case there at the moment a criminal prosecution against a former solicitor michael
lynn lin was a solicitor stroke property developer who went into difficulty got into difficulty
and the whole team crashed around his ears back when the celtic tiger situation
and fell apart when the property crash hit ireland but he got into difficulty and for years
um the guardi and the prosecution service here the dpp wanted to bring criminal prosecutions
against him they were unable to for one reason or another lynn went to the uk he went to portugal
he went to brazil but eventually he's back and there's a criminal trial going on at the moment
he's been accused of theft of 27 million euros from various banks on foot of undertakings and
unfortunate borrowings for various properties essentially the allegation is that he was
unlike ordinary solicitors or more solicitors which is the common practice obtaining a loan
and securing it on one property he was actually obtaining multiple loans secured on the one
property and the allegation is that he was involved in forging undertakings or getting
colleagues to forge undertakings forging accounts and so on these are allegations the case is still
going on i'm not going to comment on it one way or the other in terms of the guilt or innocence of mr
lynn he's entitled to the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty i think the case is
nearly wrapping up now and we will probably have a verdict in early course however the last few days
mr lin's wife breed i think her name is she's a former nurse um she gave evidence on behalf of mr
lin's defense and mr lin's senior council took her through evidence but basically she wasn't involved
in the business because she was the nurse that was her profession but she could give evidence about
meeting mr lind and living with him and having four wonderful children and so on and so forth
and the difficulty that they had down through the years with various health issues and so forth
that's not important the important thing is that when the senior council for the state for the
prosecution was given the opportunity to cross-examine mrs lin he declined
patrick mcgrath senior council declined to cross-examine her and again it just was a
timely reminder for me of what i read in that book the devil's advocate by i think
ian larmore or john's name not 100 i've written a blog post about the book i'd recommend it
it's very good actually but it was a reminder to me patrick mcgrath's senior council's decision not
to cross-examine michael lynn's wife because he clearly didn't see any great benefit in doing so
and remember every time he'd ask a question he did not know what the answer was going to be and the
likelihood is the answer would not be helpful to him or his case to the prosecution because clearly
she was a defense witness but it just goes to show you that you don't cross-examine every time
you get the chance you don't cross-examine for the sake of some self-indulgence or some attempt
to put manners on somebody or to knock lumps off them you cross examine when it makes sense
and it doesn't always make sense and the default position is don't cross-examine unless you have to
hope you find this video useful if you do i'd appreciate if we gave it the thumbs up down below
and you may be interested in subscribing to my youtube channel if you are just hit the subscribe
button hit the bell icon and you'll be notified every time i upload a new video thanks a lot
you