Judges Information Pack

1
 I. INSTRUCTION FOR JUDGES

Oral arguments

1. Before each round commences, the bench must elect a presiding judge.
It will be the responsibility of the presiding judge to keep order in the
courtroom, and to ensure that the rules of the competition are adhered to.

2. Judges will assess the advocacy skills and general oral presentation of each oralist of each team
before them during a given round, awarding each oralist a maximum mark of 100%. In assessing
the oral presentations, judges shall consider the items listed on the scoring sheet attached
below.

3. All oral arguments must be in English.

4. Most competitors of the Schools Moot Court Competition are not English first language
speakers. Things like mispronunciations, accent or occasional imprecision in English must not
count against the participants. Fluency in the particular language used (or the lack thereof)
should therefore not determine the marks awarded.

5. Since a team has no choice as to which side of the dispute it must plead in a given round, scoring
must not reflect the merits of the case but only the legal analysis and advocacy skills of the
participants. In other words, a team may ‘lose’ the argument, but win the round.

6. All teams will be given an opportunity to argue for the applicants and respondents during the
preliminary rounds.

7. Both team members must act as oralists during all rounds.

8. Essays are assessed by the central marking body prior to the competition. Judges may receive
the essays of the teams to argue before them at the beginning of the competition and are
required to read the essays before the rounds in question.

9. The order of speaking shall be as follows:

• Team for the Applicant presents their submissions. Each team member should speak for
8-10 minutes. The total maximum time allowed for each team is 20 minutes from which
the applicant may elect to reserve time for rebuttal. The rebuttal, if time is reserved for
it, may not exceed 3 minutes.
• Team for the Respondent presents their submissions: team members should speak for
810 minutes. The total time allowed for each team is 20 minutes.
• However, judges may at their discretion allow the team member up to two extra minutes
to finish their point.
• If time has been reserved for this purpose, the Applicant will presents their rebuttal to the
respondent’s argument (3 minutes)
 10. Judges should feel free to question oralists at any point during the pleadings, but should
also bear in mind the importance of affording oralists the opportunity to "make their case".

Narrative commentary by the judges should be kept to a minimum. The primary intention of
oral pleadings is to allow judges to ask relevant questions to expose the knowledge and
capabilities of the advocates. It is the responsibility of the presiding judge of a specific panel to
ensure that judges do not obstruct the smooth running of the proceedings and do not unduly
interfere with the argument of a participant. Notwithstanding the above, the students are
warned to expect several questions from the panel and the judges should not hesitate to
interrupt the oralists with questions where appropriate – this is in fact one of the best ways to
test the oralist on the criteria set out in the scoresheet.

10. Judges should also keep in mind that the advocates arguing are scholars with no legal
background other than the research done to appear in this court.

11. Ex parte procedures: Where a team fails to arrive for a scheduled round, the organisers,
after waiting for ten minutes have the discretion to either announce a new team against which
the other team will argue, or allow the round to proceed ex parte. In such a case, the team that
fails to arrive for the scheduled round shall forfeit all of the round's points. If good cause is
shown, the organisers may arrange for an additional round for the absent team later during the
competition, if time and administrative concerns permit.

12.Scope of oral arguments: The scope is not limited to the scope of the team’s essays. Please
keep in mind that the purpose of the rebuttal by the Applicant is to refute a limited number of
points raised by the Respondent. No new arguments may be raised during rebuttal. Judges have
the responsibility to monitor this.

Time Limits
1. Each team is allowed to argue for a maximum of 20 minutes per team. For the applicant team,
the 20 minutes includes the time they may wish to reserve for their reply. The reply may not
exceed 3 minutes.

2. One oralist may not use more than 12 minutes.

3. A bailiff will continuously indicate the time left for each speaker using signs.

Scoring of the oral arguments

1. Each individual judge shall assess each team participating before him/her on the basis of the
instructions given below. Teams are assessed on their oral presentations only and the essays
may be provided merely to give the judges an indication of the line of argument the particular
team is most likely to follow.

2. It is important to again note that the teams are in no way bound to the arguments in their
essays and may deviate from them without penalty in their oral presentation. A maximum
mark of 100 can be awarded for the oral presentation of each individual oralist.
3. Each team member will be given an individual mark (a percentage) based exclusively on his
or her oral performance. The average of both members’ speaking mark is the team’s oral
mark.

Feedback

1. Judges are encouraged to write short comments on the scoresheets on the performance of
each oralist that appears before them.

2. Judges are requested to give oral feedback to the teams that appeared in front of them before
they proceed with the next round.

Fair play
1.Scouting: No member of a team may attend a round of any other team if they are scheduled to
compete against that team. Teams violating this rule may be disqualified. All rounds will be open
to the public. Audio and videotaping of oral pleadings is prohibited unless all parties to the
proceedings give clear consent: all judges and all speakers. Such consent must be communicated
to the bailiff before the round begins.

2.Oral and written communication: No oral or written communication may take place between
team tables and any spectator during a round.

3.Absence from the courtroom: No team member shall be allowed to leave the courtroom for the
duration of the proceedings of a specific round in which he or she is taking part.

Final round

1.The four (4) highest scoring teams in the semi-final Rounds will proceed to the Final Round in
the Constitutional Court. Two (2) of these teams will be joined to argue the case for the applicant
as a new combined team and the other two (2) teams will, as a new combined team, argue the
case for the respondent in the Final Round.

2.The two joint teams will each be comprised of at least one (1) team from either a Quintile 1, 2
or 3 school.

3.Only two (2) members of each combined team, one from each constitutive team, will present
arguments during the Final Round.

4.The two (2) teams comprising the combined team with the highest scores will be the co-winners
of the competition.

5.Lots will be drawn to determine the composition of the combined teams in the final round, and
who will argue the case for the applicant or respondent.
The 4 top teams in the semi‐final rounds will advance to final round of the Competition, which
will be held at the Constitutional Court, Johannesburg.

6. Should a team that qualified for the final be unable to participate; the team that ranked in 5th
place will advance to the final.
 4

2023 Provincial ORAL ROUND

ORAL SCORING SHEET
APPLICANT’S ☐
RESPONDENT’S☐

(Applicant) ______V______(Respondent)

ORALIST 1 - SURNAME ROUND SESSION ORALIST 2 - SURNAME

Highest Score Score Highest

possible given INDICATORS given possible
score score
 Knowledge of the facts
25 Correct and articulate analysis of the 25
issues
• Familiarity with Constitutional Law
authorities
• Basic knowledge of substance and
process of Constitutional Law
• Knowledge of legal principles directly
25 25
applicable to the facts
25 • Organisation 25
• Clarity
• Response to questions
25 • Ingenuity 25
• Persuasiveness

100% 100%

I found the presentation of Oralist 1 to be: I found the presentation of Oralist 2 to be:

_________________________________ _________________________________

_________________________________ _________________________________

_________________________________ _________________________________

_________________________________ _________________________________

Name of judge: Signature of judge:

_________________________________ _________________________________

Scoring Guide
Outstanding 90% - 100% Average 50% - 59%
Excellent 80% - 89% Poor 40% - 49%
Very Good 70% - Below minimum standard expected 0% - 39%
79% Good 60% -
69%
5