A Sense of History
Harold Wilson (the former Prime Minister) once wrote that any politician needed a sense of history. Whilst it is much less relevant to, and certainly not a pre-requisite of practice at the Bar, I think it helps. Having said that very few young barristers now have much of a sense of history, (apart from the odd one who studied a history degree) which is possibly a reflection on how history is now taught (or in some cases, not taught).
Advocates have to adapt to different styles in different eras. When you read some of the contents of speeches of stars of the Bar from long ago (Marshall Hall for example) you realise how much the styles of advocacy have changed. Similar speeches today would lead to looks of bemusement. No doubt the style generally used today would have been regarded as ludicrous in Marshall Hall's era. In court terms, save in TV fictional representation, this is an era much less given to old-style oratory and flowery language. (As the House of Commons also shows).
On the other hand there is probably much greater similarity when one looks at excerpts of cross-examination. Although different evidential rules and approaches will affect the nature of the questions, possibly there is less change across the years. Oratorical styles may change, but a large part of the key skills in breaking down a witness probably do not.
I think any barrister with any sense of imagination will have a feeling of the historical context in which he operates. Criminal practitioners at the Old Bailey are following on the tradition of any number of heavy criminal cases. The same is true for civil practitioners in the Royal Courts of Justice. The Inns of Court themselves, with their centuries of being a home for the legal profession, give one a sense of the long-term flow of legal activity of which you are a relatively passing part.
I was reminded of this in my most recent appearance in the Privy Council, referred to in the QC blogs preceding this. The Privy Council had been the final Court of Appeal for the British Empire. It still acts as the final court of appeal for a small number of independent states although this has dramatically reduced over the years. It is now also the devolution court. The scope of business in the Privy Council developed from the distinction between England and the Duchy of Normandy. (Of course the Channel Islands, whilst not being part of this country, became effectively subject to British laws, albeit with a measure of independence, because they were Crown possessions originally part of the Duchy). Norman subjects wished to be distinguished from "conquered" peoples (i.e. the English) by having rights of access to the King, by way of his close advisers or "Privy Council". This remained the right for the Channel Islands once the rest of Normandy was lost, and ended up being extended to overseas dominions possessions or protective territories of one sort or another since shortly before Victoria’s reign the Privy Council developed into a formal legal court. At its zenith the Privy Council was the ultimate Court of Appeal for about 25% of the world's population. A spectacular illustration of its reach was that members of an Indian tribe were once found sacrificing an animal to some unknown foreign deity which it was understood would influence its dispute with the Indian government namely "the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council". Few courts can have such a history!
Knowing something of the background to a court cannot help you with knowledge of your case, or the tribunal, or the points that might arise. What it can do is help your feeling for a sense of your case is being part of a stream of other cases that have gone before and other cases that will follow afterwards. It can give you sense of the magnificent advocates who have appeared. Most importantly of all, it can give you knowledge that you must master every last detail of your case and spend your energy to the utmost to be worthy of a part in that continuing history.