ACCT 3308 · Reporting and Giving Evidence in Court

Led by Felix Aubrey Sharpley Simulacrum

1. Module 8 ○ Open

   Reporting and Giving Evidence in Court

   Led by Felix Aubrey Sharpley Simulacrum

   The question

   Reporting and giving evidence in court — the deliverable that completes most forensic engagements. The module covers the report structure (executive summary, introduction, background, methodology, findings, opinion, limitations, appendices), clear writing for a legal audience, cross-examination preparation, demeanour in the witness box, the common cross-examination tactics and how to respond, and the discipline of credibility — built by the report's quality, reinforced or undermined by the witness-box performance, lost by overreaching. Concurrent evidence (hot-tubbing) closes the course.

   Outcome

   The student can structure a forensic report with appropriate sections; can prepare for cross-examination on a specific opinion; and can articulate the discipline of credible expert testimony — including the willingness to concede defensible points and to maintain core opinions under pressure. (Reporting and giving evidence)

   Begin the course → Mark module complete Print certificate of completion

   Practice scenarios

   Cross-Examination Preparation on the Distribution-Agreement Case

   You prepare for cross-examination on the distribution-agreement case — your central £8.7m loss number under attack on three lines (growth assumption, period of loss, substitute mitigation). The work tests whether you can hold defensible positions under hostile counsel's pressure, concede defensible points on the sensitivity range, and resist the *yes-or-no* trap without losing the central estimate.

   Your goals

   • Identify the three lines of cross-examination and prepare responses for each.
   • *Growth rate (10%)*: response — the rate is supported by historical 3-year CAGR; consistent with industry data; sensitivity analysis presents 8% as a lower-bound; the central estimate is 10%; the expert can defend it but acknowledges 8%–12% as a reasonable range.
   • *Period of loss (5 years)*: response — the agreement had no fixed term; the breach was wilful; the legal counterfactual is what the parties would have agreed had they continued; the 5-year horizon represents reasonable continuation; the 12-month-notice sensitivity is presented as the lower-bound; the expert can defend 5 years against challenges to a longer or shorter period within the analytical structure.
   • *Substitute mitigation*: response — the substitute lines have not fully mitigated; the lower margin (22% vs 32%) is structural; the volume ramp took 14 months; the analysis incorporates the actual mitigation achieved; the expert can defend against the *full mitigation* assertion by reference to the actual data.
   • Prepare for the *yes-or-no trap*: counsel may ask *do you accept that an 8% growth rate is also reasonable?* — the honest answer is *yes, within the sensitivity range* — defensible without damaging the central estimate.
   • Prepare for the *expertise-stretch*: counsel may ask about the legal interpretation of *good faith termination*; response — that is a question of law for the court, outside my expertise.
   • Frame as a 2,000-word cross-examination preparation memo for the trial team.

   Practise this scenario →