Joshua Bailey Client Interview Question

Bench Brief

1. Purpose of these notes

The purpose of these bench notes is to provide judges with an overview of the most
pertinent facts and issues at play in this client interview question. These notes are simply a
guide to the list of recognised issues in this question. If extraneous problems arise in the
course of the competition, these notes do not constrain their adjudication.

2. Facts

This question concerns an incident at a nightclub (Amber Bar) that led, arguably, to drug
offences. No charges have been laid regarding the matter, but a police interview has been
scheduled.

Persona

Joshua Bailey: An 18-year-old student. Accompanied Jake Smith to Amber Bar and supplied
him with (in exchange for money) the illicit drug commonly referred to as ecstasy.

Jake Smith: A 17-year-old minor. Bailey’s friend that accompanied him to Amber Bar.

Riley Jacobs: Friend of Bailey’s. Possibly witnessed the exchange of drugs, as it occurred at
his house.

Ben Naylor: Friend of Bailey’s that accompanied him to Amber Bar. Bailey confesses glibly
that he sold drugs in the line to the nightclub.

Jake Smith’s mother: Contacts police after Jake Smith admitted to her that Bailey gave him
the pill of ecstasy.

Joshua Bailey’s father: A prominent lawyer in a top corporate law firm in the city. Is not
aware of Bailey’s actions at Amber Bar.

Recount of events

Saturday 12th September

- Joshua Bailey, Jake Smith, and a handful of other friends meet at friend Riley Jacobs’
house to have ‘pre-drinks’ before a night out.
- Smith is a 17-year-old minor, but is in possession of a false ID that states he is of legal
age. All other members of the group, including Bailey, are aware of these facts.
- While still at Jacobs’ house, an indiscriminate friend gives Bailey two (2) ecstasy pills.
Bailey pretends to take both, but only takes one, keeping the other.
- The group then take the train to Amber Bar, and get into the line for entry.
 - Whilst in line, Bailey’s friend Ben Naylor sells ecstasy pills to other people in the line,
which Bailey notices.
- After the group gets into Amber Bar, Bailey and Smith split up. Whilst split up, Bailey
notices Smith acting in an intoxicated manner. Bailey also begins to feel the effects of
the ecstasy pill he ingested.
- Smith then approaches Bailey, asking for the extra pill in Bailey’s possession. Bailey
sells the pill to Smith, despite knowing that Smith has had bad reactions to the drug
the previous times that he has tried it.
- Bailey decides to leave, and gets the train home with a few friends, leaving Smith in
Amber Bar with the rest of the group.

Sunday 13th September

- Smith arrives home in a taxi in a very ill state.

- Bailey receives a phone call from Smith’s mother, informing him that she has
contacted police about the incident, after Smith informed her that Bailey was the
one that supplied him the ecstasy pill.
- Bailey also receives a phone call from Smith himself. The two agree that they do not
want this event to lead to a conflict, legal or otherwise.

Wednesday 16th September

- Bailey receives a phone call from the police saying someone has decided to try to
press charges against him for supplying Smith with the ecstasy pills.
- Bailey is not under arrest, but the police have organised an interview on Monday 28th
September.

3. Issues

Bailey’s sale of the drug

Rather than simply giving the ecstasy pill to Smith, as he initially states, Bailey actually sold it
to him. Obviously, this gives rise to legal questions regarding possession with intent to sell or
supply, rather than simple possession/use. However, given that legal knowledge is not
necessary in this competition, it would be enough to suggest that research would need to be
completed on the issue. Bailey is insistent on not being charged/gaining a criminal record,
and the competitors may suggest that his admission may jeopardise this if, indeed, charges
are pressed.

Jake is a minor

Legally, the fact that Bailey’s alleged offence involved a minor may bring very serious
consequences in the form of mandatory sentencing if he is found guilty of an offence.
However, due to legal knowledge not being necessary, the lawyers may suggest that
research will be done into the matter to establish Bailey’s legal stance.

Additionally, Jake’s status as a minor means that different procedures are necessary to deal
with the matter. For example, if the lawyers wish to interview him at a later date, parental
permission would be required. Given that Jake’s mother is inextricably involved in the matter
itself, this may be an issue that needs to be dealt with specifically.

Bailey’s knowledge of Smith’s reaction to the drug

Bailey sold the pill of ecstasy to Smith despite his explicit knowledge that Smith has had
abnormal reactions to the drug before. There is a slight possibility that this was negligent,
but this is best dealt with by promising to research any criminal or civil charge that may arise
from this act, and notifying Bailey at a subsequent meeting.

Ben Naylor selling pills in the line

If questioned about this incident, Bailey is concerned that Naylor will stand to be charged
over the act. This issue comes quite clearly under the issue of confidentiality. The
competitors should assure Bailey that this information will not be disclosed (barring any
extraneous circumstances), as it cannot be used to avoid the probable commission of a
serious offence or imminent serious physical harm to any person.

Bailey’s father

Bailey’s father is a prominent lawyer in the city, and Bailey is very concerned a) that this
incident will tarnish his reputation, and b) that he may work at the same firm as the
competitors. Firstly, the competitors should assure Bailey that they will check if his father
works at the firm. The competitors should then run Bailey through the consequences if this
is the case. From thereon, this is an issue of confidentiality. Under s 9(2)(a) of the Legal
Profession Conduct Rules, practitioners may disclose client information to an associate of
their practice. However, beholden to their duty to Bailey, there is no reason that they should
disclose their knowledge of the incident to Bailey’s father. With this said, there is still a real
possibility that Bailey’s father will find out about the incident if he works at the same law
firm, especially in a senior position.

The police interview

One of Bailey’s primary concerns is whether he should attend the police interview scheduled
for the 28th at all. Firstly, the competitors should assure Bailey that he is not required to
attend the interview. However, the most sensible advice to Bailey would be to attend the
interview, but do so with the knowledge that he has a general right to not answer the
police’s questions (apart from name, address, and date of birth). If the police insist that he
must answer a question, then there must be a legal basis for this.
Whether or not Bailey attends the interview, Bailey should know that there is still a
significant possibility that he will charged and placed under arrest if the police have
reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence.

Bailey is also concerned as to whether he should admit to the police that he sold the pill to
Smith, or lie that he gave it to him to try and mitigate the seriousness of the crime. The
competitors should be clear that this is not a legally or practically beneficial course of action.
Firstly, withholding information in a police interview that could lead to prosecution of a
serious indictable offence is an offence in itself. Secondly, if the case eventually goes to trial,
the competitors have a paramount duty to the courts, and would be required to give
evidence that he did indeed sell the pill to Smith.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Bailey states that he wishes to remain friends with Smith and avoid any conflict with him,
legal or otherwise. This may trigger a discussion regarding mediation between Bailey and
Smith. However, this doesn’t seem necessary (as Bailey himself points out if this transpires),
as there doesn’t seem to be any ill will between the two. On the other hand, a discussion
regarding ADR between Bailey and Smith’s mother may be more suitable, as there is a
concern that she may press civil action against the former. However, this is probably a
discussion for a later interview.