Tweet
I'm trying to draft a Skeleton for my JR claim. The biggest problem I'm having is that the Rules specify that it must be 25 pages or less but just the Legal Framework (and 2.5 pages of of Introduction and Background) takes me up to 14 pages, which only leaves 11 pages to set out my 18 grounds. At the moment the whole thing is 35 pages and I think there's stuff I've cut from the Legal Framework that I need to put back, which will add another 3 or 4 pages.
The case includes a mixture of traditional JR grounds, as well as HRA and Equality Act grounds and there is a fairly large body of domestic and ECHR caselaw I need to set out, hence why the Legal Framework is so long. I've already drastically cut the section setting out the relevant Statute to leave more space to set out the Authorities and I've only briefly summarised the relevant findings from each case.
Whilst I could summarise each ground quite succinctly by just saying something like "In basing his decision on fact 1, X relied on a material error, as fact 1 was untrue", I believe I'm expected to set out the grounds in more detail than this and explain why the reliance on fact 1 matters and that takes 4.5 pages to cover. For the relevant considerations ground, I've just said "There were a number of relevant considerations that X failed to take into account and was required to by Statue 1, which required him to consider Y, Statute 2, which required him to consider Z. etc", so that only takes a couple of paragraphs to set out the gist of it and can be expanded upon in oral argument.
Perhaps I could do the same with the material error ground but that relies on a number of background facts, which I'm concerned may be hard to cover in oral argument in the limited time allowed by the judge (maybe I'm mistaken about this and the judge will allow sufficient time to explain all the facts) and it would be better to allow the judge to have read them beforehand.
I have very much cut down most of the other grounds to a couple of paragraphs each but even so, I'm on page 25 by the time I get to the HRA ground, which takes 2.5 pages and the EqA grounds, which take 7 pages, so even if I only had those and ground 1 I'd probably be over 25 pages. It seems a bit unfair to allow the same amount of space for a case that only raises a couple of simple JR grounds and one which is more complicated and also includes HRA and EqA grounds but the Rules are quite unequivocal.
I've found some useful guides with tips on writing Skeletons but it's still hard to know what's expected without an example one to guide me (it would be very helpful if the court office would provide some examples for LiPs and surely save the court's time in having to deal with poor Skeletons). Whilst I've found a few skeletons, they generally don't touch on the same areas of law that my case does and vary considerably in layout, so there's no common template which I can follow (I've just gone for Introduction, Background, Legal Framework, Grounds, Conclusion which I think should be an acceptable format). Surprisingly, the one Skeleton I've found that ignores the Rules and comes to 35 pages is for R (London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association) v Lord Chancellor (2014) CO/2426/2014. If anyone, I would have expected them to be mindful of the Rules but maybe they felt they had a good reason for disregarding them in this case. I certainly don't want to get off to a bad start by doing so in my case if I can possibly avoid it though but every time I look at it it seems like every paragraph that's left now is important and necessary and if anything I just end up re-arranging parts, rather than cutting anything.
I'll hopefully have a pro-bono barrister to represent me and it's possible he might be able to advise me on revising the Skeleton to get it under the limit but his terms of reference may limit him strictly to representing me at hearings. Besides, I might not have long after permission is granted to submit the Skeleton, so I want to try and get it more or less finished before then if possible.
So I'd appreciate any advice on how I might be able to cut it down, or links to Skeletons that deal with fairly straightforward JR cases of material error, irrationality, relevant considerations, etc, which I can hopefully get some ideas from.
The case includes a mixture of traditional JR grounds, as well as HRA and Equality Act grounds and there is a fairly large body of domestic and ECHR caselaw I need to set out, hence why the Legal Framework is so long. I've already drastically cut the section setting out the relevant Statute to leave more space to set out the Authorities and I've only briefly summarised the relevant findings from each case.
Whilst I could summarise each ground quite succinctly by just saying something like "In basing his decision on fact 1, X relied on a material error, as fact 1 was untrue", I believe I'm expected to set out the grounds in more detail than this and explain why the reliance on fact 1 matters and that takes 4.5 pages to cover. For the relevant considerations ground, I've just said "There were a number of relevant considerations that X failed to take into account and was required to by Statue 1, which required him to consider Y, Statute 2, which required him to consider Z. etc", so that only takes a couple of paragraphs to set out the gist of it and can be expanded upon in oral argument.
Perhaps I could do the same with the material error ground but that relies on a number of background facts, which I'm concerned may be hard to cover in oral argument in the limited time allowed by the judge (maybe I'm mistaken about this and the judge will allow sufficient time to explain all the facts) and it would be better to allow the judge to have read them beforehand.
I have very much cut down most of the other grounds to a couple of paragraphs each but even so, I'm on page 25 by the time I get to the HRA ground, which takes 2.5 pages and the EqA grounds, which take 7 pages, so even if I only had those and ground 1 I'd probably be over 25 pages. It seems a bit unfair to allow the same amount of space for a case that only raises a couple of simple JR grounds and one which is more complicated and also includes HRA and EqA grounds but the Rules are quite unequivocal.
I've found some useful guides with tips on writing Skeletons but it's still hard to know what's expected without an example one to guide me (it would be very helpful if the court office would provide some examples for LiPs and surely save the court's time in having to deal with poor Skeletons). Whilst I've found a few skeletons, they generally don't touch on the same areas of law that my case does and vary considerably in layout, so there's no common template which I can follow (I've just gone for Introduction, Background, Legal Framework, Grounds, Conclusion which I think should be an acceptable format). Surprisingly, the one Skeleton I've found that ignores the Rules and comes to 35 pages is for R (London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association) v Lord Chancellor (2014) CO/2426/2014. If anyone, I would have expected them to be mindful of the Rules but maybe they felt they had a good reason for disregarding them in this case. I certainly don't want to get off to a bad start by doing so in my case if I can possibly avoid it though but every time I look at it it seems like every paragraph that's left now is important and necessary and if anything I just end up re-arranging parts, rather than cutting anything.
I'll hopefully have a pro-bono barrister to represent me and it's possible he might be able to advise me on revising the Skeleton to get it under the limit but his terms of reference may limit him strictly to representing me at hearings. Besides, I might not have long after permission is granted to submit the Skeleton, so I want to try and get it more or less finished before then if possible.
So I'd appreciate any advice on how I might be able to cut it down, or links to Skeletons that deal with fairly straightforward JR cases of material error, irrationality, relevant considerations, etc, which I can hopefully get some ideas from.
