JBA Oral Exam common mistakes
JBA Oral Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked about a constitutional dispute, the candidate argues only policy merits and never cites the constitutional provision or the constitutional court's precedent that actually governs the issue.
Candidates prepare constitutional law as a current-affairs subject and memorize commentary and newspaper positions, so under oral pressure they default to normative argument because it is easier to improvise than to recall article numbers and holdings.
What to do instead
For every constitutional topic on the syllabus, build a three-line card: the provision, one leading precedent with its holding, and the doctrinal test the court applies. In mock orals, answer with the formula 'the governing provision is X, the court held Y in Z, therefore the measure is/is not compatible'. Practice until the citation comes before the policy view.
The candidate answers a question about a constitutional right as if the right were absolute, ignoring the statutory limitation clause and the proportionality test.
Rights are taught in the abstract early in study, and candidates remember the guarantee but not the limitation regime, so they never reach the structured balancing step the examiner is testing.
What to do instead
Memorize the limitation clause of each fundamental right and rehearse a fixed four-step script: protected scope, interference, statutory basis, proportionality (legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, balancing). Apply the script aloud to three hypotheticals per right so the structure becomes automatic.
In administrative law, the candidate reviews the legality of an administrative act without first establishing the correct type of act and the correct remedy, mixing annulment, declaration, and damages claims in one answer.
Candidates learn substantive grounds of review (ultra vires, misuse of power, procedural defect) in isolation from the procedural law of remedies, and oral questions often blend the two, so the candidate conflates them.
What to do instead
Before discussing any ground, state the act's classification, the competent reviewing court, the standing of the claimant, the time limit, and the remedy sought. Drill a one-minute 'gateway check' at the start of every administrative answer; only then move to the substantive grounds.
The candidate treats administrative discretion as unreviewable and answers 'the administration has discretion, so the court cannot interfere' when asked about a manifestly disproportionate decision.
The phrase 'discretion' is remembered as a shield rather than as a bounded power, and candidates do not distinguish errors of law from errors in the exercise of discretion.
What to do instead
Memorize the review grounds for discretion: absence or excess of power, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, error of fact, breach of legitimate expectations, and manifest disproportionality. For each, prepare one short example and state explicitly which ground applies and why the court can intervene.
In civil law, the candidate answers a claim question by reciting the elements of a cause of action but never checks the requirements for a valid contract or the applicable limitation period.
Oral questions are posed as short factual scenarios, and candidates jump to the desired outcome rather than running the doctrinal checklist; limitation periods in particular are memorized late and rarely revisited.
What to do instead
Use a fixed sequence for every civil scenario: capacity, consent free from defect, object, cause, form, performance, breach, remedies, and limitation. State the limitation period and its start date explicitly even when the examiner does not ask, and note any suspension or interruption.
The candidate confuses the civil-law concepts of ownership, possession, and security interests, and answers a property question by describing who 'really owns' the asset without identifying the registered right or the priority rule.
Everyday language equates ownership with control, and candidates do not rehearse the technical distinctions, so the answer drifts into intuition rather than the statutory regime.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table of ownership, possession, usufruct, pledge, mortgage, and retention of title, with the creation requirement, the publicity requirement, and the priority rule for each. Rehearse priority conflicts (registered versus unregistered, earlier versus later) aloud until the ordering rule is automatic.
In commercial law, the candidate answers a company-law question about directors' liability or shareholder rights without distinguishing the company as a separate legal person from its members and officers.
Candidates memorize lists of duties and rights but not the allocation of competence among the general meeting, the board, and the officers, so they attribute decisions to the wrong organ.
What to do instead
For each commercial-law topic, draw the organ map first: who decides, by what majority, with what formality, and who bears liability. Then answer. Memorize the duty of care and duty of loyalty tests with one case example each, and always state whether liability attaches to the company, the director, or both.
In civil procedure, the candidate ignores procedural prerequisites such as jurisdiction, standing, and the preclusive effect of a prior judgment, and argues the merits of a claim that would be dismissed on procedural grounds.
Substantive law is studied more and feels more rewarding, so procedural gateways are under-rehearsed; oral scenarios are designed precisely to test whether the candidate spots the procedural bar before the merits.
What to do instead
Adopt a mandatory opening checklist for every procedural hypothetical: competence and jurisdiction, standing, capacity, prior adjudication and res judicata, time limits, and required notifications. State each check aloud, then say whether the court proceeds to the merits, and only then discuss substance.
In criminal law, the candidate labels conduct with a single offence and stops, failing to test the elements of the offence, the mens rea, and alternative or lesser offences, and failing to discuss justification and excuse separately.
Candidates learn offence names as labels rather than as element sets, and they merge justification (wrongfulness) with excuse (culpability), which produces a conclusion without reasoning.
What to do instead
Use a fixed structure for every criminal scenario: act, causation, elements of the offence, mens rea, unlawfulness (justification: self-defence, necessity), culpability (excuse: insanity, mistake, duress), then attempt, participation, and concurrence of offences. Name the lesser included offence explicitly and say why it does or does not apply.
In criminal procedure, the candidate justifies or criticizes a search, arrest, or detention solely on the basis of whether evidence was found, without addressing the statutory authorization and the suspect's procedural rights.
Outcome thinking dominates exam preparation, and procedural safeguards are memorized as a list rather than as a sequence that must be checked at each stage of the investigation.
What to do instead
Rehearse the procedural timeline for each coercive measure: legal basis, competent authority, required form and record, time limits, notification of rights, access to counsel, and the consequence of a defect (nullity, exclusion of evidence). Answer by walking the timeline, not by judging the result.