Example role play

You’ll usually provided with some pre-reading material ahead of selection days or on the day of the assessment.  

For this example video, the pre-reading materials are:  

• Chapters one to four and appendix A to C of the Equal Treatment Bench Book   
• The decision of the local authority  
• The appeal notice from the appellant  
• The case management directions made two months ago
• The statement of the local authority, made pursuant to those directions  
• Extracts from the Tribunal Procedure Rules and Practice Statements that they may need to apply 
• Senior President’s Practice Direction on Vulnerable Witnesses

In this example you are cast in the role of a fee-paid judge, conducting a substantive hearing in the fictional jurisdiction of the ‘Local Authority Disputes Resolution Tribunal.’   

The tribunal follows the rules of the Equal Treatment Bench Book.   

You will be presented a series of four short video chapters with subtitles. Following each video, a prompt will appear containing a question for you to respond to. You can pause the video to consider your response but will not be able to interact with the actors as this role play is pre-recorded.  At a JAC selection day, you would be required to immediately deliver your responses orally during the pauses in the video, and the scenes which are shown next will depend upon the specific response you gave. In this example role play you are not able to record your answers.

After each prompt question, un-pause the video and you will be directed to the next scene.  

 As soon as you enter the virtual hearing room, you should act as though you are a sitting judge.  

Example roleplay context: Snow vs. Local Authority 

The issue you must decide is whether a young person, aged 15, can attend a residential summer camp. The camp is being held at the ‘Old Harry’ campsite in Dorset, some two hundred miles from West Midlands, the local authority (LA), running the camp.  

West Midlands Local Authority (LA) has taken a decision that April Snow, a girl who has Down’s Syndrome, cannot attend the camp.  

The LA decision is appealable. The parties to the appeal are the appellant, Donna Snow (April’s mother) and the respondent is West Midlands LA, represented by their head of Youth Services, Dr Lynch.  

The substantive powers open to the Tribunal are to:  

• refuse to allow April to attend the camp  
• allow April to attend the camp  
• permit April to attend the camp with such conditions as the Tribunal sees fit  

Two months ago, there was a case management hearing. You have the directions given by another judge: 

• this hearing is to be listed as a remote video hearing as soon as practicable with a time estimate of no more than 30 minutes  
• both parties are to file and serve statements of their respective cases no later than 7 days before the hearing  
• the evidence on the day is to be limited to the statements filed and the submissions of the parties   

The evidence for each competency tested in roleplays is assessed as either outstanding, strong, sufficient or insufficient. Below is an outline of how candidate responses could be assessed in the Snow vs Local Authority role play.

In this example roleplay, outstanding evidence would include:

• running the hearing smoothly and demonstrating clear consideration of time management
• showing awareness of timing and setting the pace for the conversation
• demonstrating a clear grasp of the information provided and referring to specific sections of practice statements and rules
• showing awareness and consideration for the needs of the parties and adapting style and approach accordingly
• maintaining control of the hearing and establishing authority
• demonstrating courtesy and empathy whilst challenging prejudice and inappropriate behaviour from the parties
• demonstrating fairness, integrity and lack of bias or prejudice
• delivering quick but clear and appropriate interlocutory decisions in a confident manner and supported by clear rationale
• giving a well-structured and appropriate final judgment supported by a critical analysis of all information
• showing willingness to be flexible in achieving the over-arching objective
• demonstrating resilience in changing circumstances

Insufficient evidence would include:

• not referencing the advance reading material
• not explaining the purpose of the hearing and the running order
• not providing clear decisions on the procedural matters
• failing to tackle the animosity and inappropriate comments between the two parties
• not showing empathy to parties
• getting side-tracked on exploring non-essential issues with the parties
• not keeping an eye on the time throughout the hearing
• making incorrect judgements or incorrect rationale
• lacking consistency in approach and confidence in decision making
• not demonstrating appropriate consideration of the needs of the parties or showing the necessary authority
• failing to make a final ruling within the time allowed