Dealing with interruptions from the other side
From time to time the other side will interrupt you during your cross-examination or submissions.
Not all interruptions are unhelpful. One common reason for interrupting is to indicate that the line that is being argued is not contested. If your opponent breaks in to say “We agree that if X then Y” he is trying to be helpful and save everyone some time. Just say “Thank you” and move on.
Some interruptions are unhelpful, normally because your opponent is objecting to what you are doing. The classic example of this is an objection to a question during cross-examination. For example, the other side might break in to say that you are asking about privileged information and that the witness should not have to answer.
Some interruptions are actively hostile, in that they are intended not to raise a valid point, but to trip you up and make your life difficult. The same effect can be produced unintentionally if the other side doesn’t know what they are doing, and so raises pointless issues.
If you are interrupted, the first thing to do is to stop speaking. Don’t try to talk over the interruption. It will not work and will make you look bad. Be particularly careful during cross-examination. Don’t give the impression that you are trying to get an answer before the tribunal can respond. This works in American legal dramas, but not real life.
The Judge will listen to the objection and then either dismiss it or give you a chance to have your say before making a decision. You might realise, once you hear the objection, that your opponent was right and you have misstepped. If so, apologise (with as much grace as you can muster) and move on. If not, explain, preferably briefly, why your opponent is wrong.
Dealing with frequent hostile objections can be difficult. Even if they are quickly dismissed they are off putting and disruptive. Really it is a job for the Judge. One reason for going quiet as soon as an interruption is made is to draw attention to it and to try to seize the moral high ground.
If the tribunal does not step in, it is usually best to press on, rather than asking the tribunal to intervene. The difficulty is that, if the tribunal has not intervened, they probably either think the interruptions are okay or, they are irritated by them, but don’t want to intervene yet. In either case, it is better not to force the issue. A plaintive or exasperated glance at the tribunal might help – but don’t over do it.
Occasionally, it will be best to tackle the issue head on by raising it with the Judge. But this is a high risk strategy where it helps to have some experience of tribunals to pick your moment and your method. In general don’t, but if you think you must, resolve that you’ll only object if it happens twice more. Given that you are the person being interrupted you will inevitably be more irritated than anyone else. Resolving to wait will, hopefully, counteract this.
Under no circumstances should you attempt to retaliate by making your own frivolous interruptions when your opponent is speaking. The moral high ground is too valuable to give up, no matter how satisfying it would be. And, if you are making numerous objections, but the Judge keeps rejecting them, give serious consideration to the possibility that you’re being overzealous.
