KSL ATP Criminal Litigation common mistakes
KSL ATP Criminal Litigation · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Failing to challenge a denial of access to a solicitor by not identifying the s58(8) PACE exception, the custody record entry, and the s78 exclusion argument.
Candidates accept the custody officer's stated reason at face value and focus on the interview rather than the legality of the detention and advice.
What to do instead
Ask for the specific grounds and authorisation for delay, advise the client to remain silent until advice is obtained, and prepare a s78 application citing the breach and its effect on fairness.
Acting for two co-defendants whose accounts blame each other, or continuing to act after receiving confidential information from one that is relevant to the other.
Candidates want to keep the client or avoid an awkward conversation, and they underestimate how quickly a conflict can arise in criminal cases.
What to do instead
Run a conflict check at first contact, identify whether there is a conflict or a significant risk of one, cease acting for one or both if necessary, and record the reasons and client notification.
Making a bail application without addressing each relevant exception in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976, such as failing to surrender, offending on bail, or interference with witnesses.
Candidates argue bail generally and rely on personal mitigation instead of matching evidence to the statutory exceptions the prosecution is relying on.
What to do instead
Prepare a bail plan that maps evidence to each statutory exception, proposes conditions, sureties, curfew or residence requirements, and answers the prosecution's specific objections.
Applying only the evidential stage of the Full Code Test and ignoring the public interest stage, or charging the most serious offence without considering alternatives.
Exam fact patterns often point strongly to one offence, so candidates skip the structured charging analysis and miss the public interest factors.
What to do instead
State both stages expressly, apply the Code paragraph by paragraph, identify public interest factors for and against prosecution, and record why a lesser or alternative charge is or is not appropriate.
Advising on plea before venue without explaining the difference between summary trial and trial on indictment, including the magistrates' sentencing powers and the risk of committal for sentence.
Candidates treat allocation as a formality and rush to enter a plea rather than ensuring the client understands the consequences.
What to do instead
Use a structured allocation script: enter the plea, if not guilty consider allocation, explain the options and consequences in writing, and confirm the client's instructions.
Jumping to a headline sentence without identifying the correct guideline, offence category, culpability and harm factors, or checking the statutory maximum.
Candidates rely on general impressions of seriousness and are unfamiliar with the step-by-step guideline structure.
What to do instead
Work through the guideline step by step: category, starting point, aggravating and mitigating factors, credit for plea, ancillary orders, and statutory maximum.
Arguing that hearsay is inadmissible without identifying a gateway under s114 Criminal Justice Act 2003, or missing that bad character evidence requires a s101 gateway and leave.
Candidates know the labels but not the statutory gateways, so they make broad fairness arguments instead of precise admissibility points.
What to do instead
For every hearsay or bad character point, state the gateway, the notice or leave requirement, and the s78 discretion; prepare a short admissibility table before the hearing.
Making a closing speech that repeats the prosecution case instead of focusing on the burden and standard of proof and the specific weaknesses in the evidence.
Candidates are nervous about missing points and try to cover everything, losing a clear trial theory and the jury's attention.
What to do instead
Prepare a one-page trial theory with three best points, anchor each to the evidence, and close by reminding the jury of the burden and standard of proof.
Missing the 28-day deadline to appeal from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court, or confusing that route with the Crown Court to Court of Appeal route.
Candidates conflate the different appeal routes and time limits, especially when the client asks about appeal immediately after sentence.
What to do instead
Draw an appeal route map at the start: magistrates to Crown Court, case stated or judicial review, and Crown Court to Court of Appeal, with the notice and time limits for each.
Taking instructions from a child or vulnerable defendant without an appropriate adult present, or failing to consider special measures for a vulnerable witness.
Candidates treat youth and vulnerability as background facts rather than as procedural safeguards that affect the fairness of the process.
What to do instead
Check age and vulnerability at first contact, arrange an appropriate adult, apply for special measures early, and adapt communication and questioning to the defendant's needs.