The Bucerius Common Law Moot, now in its 18th year, was held from May to June by the Foreign Language Communication Programme.
Common Law Moot
The competition is open to both first- and second-year Bucerius Law School students and is now a formal standalone course offered by the programme. By taking part in the competition, students have the chance, not only to improve their oral advocacy and drafting skills, but also to accumulate an extra credit point towards the Fachspezifische Fremdsprachenprüfung (FFP) qualification.
To gain the additional point, participants need to moot twice in the first round (once for the appellant, and once for the respondent) and submit two sets of skeleton arguments (court documents setting out the mooters’ grounds of appeal and main submissions in writing). In addition, in formulating their submissions, students are required to research and analyse the law, apply it to a complex set of facts, and think about the various policy arguments that could swing the court’s finding in their favour.
The Oscar Pistorius case
This year’s problem was a criminal-law one based on the infamous 2013 Oscar Pistorius case, in which the celebrated South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete was tried for murder for shooting and killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s Day.
As in real life, in this year’s moot problem, the trial court, after hearing and weighing the oral evidence, ruled that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intentionally killed his girlfriend. It found instead that he had acted negligently and was therefore guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter).
The key issues in the case were whether the accused acted with indirect legal intent in the form of dolus eventualis or negligence at the critical moment. Further questions were whether he acted in private defence or putative private defence in the circumstances.
Legal subtleties under the microscope
This moot was a challenging one in that the key issues were mixed ones of fact and law. As the matter was being heard in an appeal court, the mooters were constrained by the factual findings of the trial court and could make submissions only on questions of law. One of the subsidiary issues in the case was whether an appeal court could take into account evidence apparently disregarded by the trial court that was of crucial importance to the legal issues.
All the judges agreed that the mooting in the preliminary rounds was of a most impressive standard. All the mooters demonstrated their deep understanding of the legal principles and ability to use the courtroom bundle (which included pictures and diagrams) effectively. Competitors also showed their capacity to make compelling policy arguments as to whether there should be a conviction for murder or culpable homicide – or, indeed, whether the accused should be acquitted of all charges.
The results of the first round, both in terms of team and individual scores, were exceptionally close, and the judges had to use the tie-breaker methodology set out in the competition rules to decide which teams would progress to the Grand Final.
The Common Law Moot Team of Bucerius Law School
In the end, the chosen finalists were Joshua Leydecker (senior counsel) and Per Ahmerkamp (junior counsel), who acted for the appellants, and Milan Kohlhaase (senior counsel) and Leonardo Giulini (junior counsel), who acted for the respondents.
The bench was made up of three judges: Lezel Roddeck, director of the Foreign Language Communication Programme; James Linscott, Anglo-American Law Lecturer in the programme; and Professor Marah McLeod, a visiting scholar from Notre Dame Law School in the United States. Professor McLeod is a criminal-law expert with significant practical experience in criminal litigation, so her presence on the bench was invaluable, both for the other judges and the finalists.
A brilliant finale at the highest level
The quality of mooting in the Grand Final was outstanding, with all four finalists distinguishing themselves in the face of ongoing and sometimes intense questioning from the judges. They at all times kept their cool and stood their ground, making eloquent submissions in their clients’ interests.
Deciding the overall winners was a most unenviable task for the judges, but in the end they were of the view that the team comprising Joshua Leydecker and Per Ahmerkamp had the edge over that made up of Milan Kohlhaase and Leonardo Giulini.
The victors got to take home the Bucerius Common Law Moot trophy, on which their names will be engraved, as well as a cash prize of €200. However, the runners-up did not go away empty-handed, pocketing a cash prize of €100. In addition, they won a special award for drafting the most impressive skeleton arguments in the first round.
Luzi Hillert, another competition participant, received a prize for being the best orator in the first round, while all those who took part in the competition were given a certificate of participation to acknowledge their hard work and commitment over the last few weeks.
The Foreign Language Communication Programme would like to thank all the students for taking part in the competition and ensuring it was such a success. In addition, we would like to thank senior students and experienced mooters Alicia Albrecht, Moritz Hahn, Louis Strelow, and Henri Heising for helping us to judge the first round of the competition.
A special word of thanks must also go to Professor Marah McLeod for so generously giving of her time to help us judge the Grand Final, and for providing the finalists with such detailed and useful feedback on their performances.
We look forward to next year’s iteration of the competition, in which we hope to continue and extend the fine tradition of mooting at Bucerius Law School.
