Mock Environment Resources & Development Court ? Script

Mock Environment Resources & Development Court ― Script Setting the scene In introducing the mock hearing the narrator can give a brief overview of the role of the court and the nature of the current dispute. This may include a mention of the steps that may have occurred before the hearing stage such as a development proposal and approval by local government, public meetings, a conference and then a hearing in the ERD Court. In the hearing that follows each group will present their case to the court. They may question witnesses in an attempt to do this before making final remarks. The court then considers what has been put before them and makes a decision. In presenting their cases students may refer to the relevant Local Council Development Plan available form Council offices or on the Internet. A Development Plan is a 3-5 year plan that details the type of land use and facilities planned for the council area. A map of the proposed development site can be useful in attempting to inform the audience of the location.

The Hearing JSO:

Silence. All stand. Judge and commissioners enter the room and take their seats at the bench. Calling the matter of the Renmark Resident Action Group Incorporated and The Renmark Council and Skate Park Development Group (insert relevant sides) Lawyers/Representatives of the various groups are seated at the bar table from left to right – The Developer, The Council and The Resident Group. Behind them in the public gallery are the witnesses they will call and general public

Judge:

Very well.

Resident Group Lawyer:

Your honour, my name is Peter Judd and I will be representing The Resident Action Group Incorporated that is opposing the development.

Council Rep:

Your honour, my name is Frank Weatherill and I will be representing the Renmark Council at this hearing.

Devt Grp Rep:

Your honour, my name is Rita Vosso and I will be representing the Skate Park Development Group at this hearing.

Judge:

Thank you. Mr Judd, would you like to begin?

Judd:

Thank you Your Honour. In recent times there has been much debate about the development of a skate park for youth in the region. While we are not against the idea we will attempt to show that further consideration needs to be given to aspects of this proposal and in order to best suit the needs of the community.

In accordance with the Development Plan a number of changes need to be made to make the proposed development acceptable to the community. I will call witnesses who will point out weaknesses in the development and the need for change. Judge:

Thank you Mr Judd. You may call your first witness.

Judd: I call Eileen Philpotts. (Res Grp Lawyer) Mrs Philpotts moves to the witness box and is sworn in by the JSO. JSO:

Take the bible in your hand. Do you swear the evidence you give to the court shall be the truth so help you God? Say I swear.

Philpotts:

I swear

JSO:

Please state your full name, residential address and occupation for the court.

Philpotts:

Philpotts responds. Lawyer proceeds to ask a few questions re how long she has lived in the area, if she is aware of the development and when, her reaction and what actions she may take as a result if it goes ahead. Philpotts responds indicating she was appalled when she heard the news from friends in her street and would move from the area as she doesn’t want to be hassled by young rat-bag skaters. [Time limit - 3 mins]

Judd:

No further questions.

Judge:

Thank you Ms Philpotts. You may now step down.

Judd:

I now call Jane Clarkson (As per previous witness Ms Clarkson is sworn in. We can dispense with this should time be a consideration in this activity) Lawyer proceeds to ask a few questions about her previous experience of a similar development in another town. She talks about the noise, litter, vandalism and graffiti that residents had to deal with. She dislikes the behaviour of park users such as smoking, drinking and bad language, believes property values will decline and will probably move to another location. [Time limit - 3 mins]

Judd:

No further questions.

Judge:

Thank you Ms Clarkson. You may now step down.

Judd:

I now call Fred Collins. Mr Collins is sworn in by the JSO and is then questioned by Lawyer Judd. He is asked about his occupation and role and his opinion of noise levels for the planned development. He will say that in accordance with the current specifications the output will be more than 45 decibels which is unacceptable. He has concerns that changes to the current design to lower the noise will result in other problems such as tapping into groundwater and disturbing native wildlife.

Judd:

That concludes our case Your Honour.

Judge:

Thank you. Mr Weatherill

Weatherill: Thank you Your Honour. (Council Executive) The Council has spent a great deal of time discussing the merits of the project. At each stage we have sought feedback from interested parties and feel that general concerns have been adequately met. We have been mindful of the objectives of the Development Plan, including - providing community and public facilities, avoiding land uses that could generate crime and nuisance behaviour, ensuring suitable and safe access without interfering with traffic flow and emergency vehicle access and without affecting the amenity of surrounding areas. The form of development also meets with zoning for the area. I will call three witnesses, a traffic engineer, an acoustics engineer and a planner who will identify concerns and ways to deal with them. Judge:

Yes Mr Weatherill. You may call your first witness.

Weatherill:

Thank you. I call Susan Pudney. Ms Pudney is sworn in by the JSO and states her name, occupation and residential address. The questioning sees Ms Pudney having to respond about the impact on traffic and parking. She states there is little concern as user surveys indicate most users will be under driving age. While she agrees there may be some risks for people crossing roads to get to the skate park site, these are no different than what already exists as people currently have to cross the same roads to access shops in the area. Nothing further Your Honour. I would now like to call my next witness.

Judge:

Yes. Very well

Weatherill:

I call Brenton Shackey. Mr Shackey is sworn in. He is questioned by Weatherill about the testing the Council carried out that produced projected noise levels of only 43 decibels. (Try to explain the significance of this figure) He suggests that raising the barrier a little will create lower noise levels and that double glazed panels are more attractive than concrete ones for the same noise reduction. Nothing further. I would like to call my last witness.

Judge:

Very Well.

Weatherill:

Thank you Your Honour. I call Graham Schenk. Mr Schenk is sworn in and states his name, occupation and address. Weatherill establishes his role as a planner and then asks three questions about planning considerations for the site eg. What are the advantages of this location as a site? (near transport routes and other facilities, adequate parking and not an eyesore). What benefits will it provide for youth? (a place for them to practise their craft and by giving them something constructive to do in their own neighbourhood. It also provides a place for spectators.) Does the plan meet with the development plan for the area?

Weatherill:

No further questions Your Honour. That concludes my submissions.

Judge:

Very well. You may be seated Mr Schenk. Ms Vosso.

Vosso: Thank you Your Honour. (Skate Pk Devt Grp Rep) The Skate Park Development Group recognises the need to provide more facilities for young people of the area. Too often there have been complaints of little to do and the development of the skate park would provide leisure choices for a significant group. Much of the concern from residents has focussed on likely behaviour of persons using the park. I will call two/three witnesses, a police officer a skater and a parent, who will detail the benefits a skate park in the township. I now call Sgt Foster Knight. Mr Knight is sworn in. He is then questioned about his opinion re youth in the area. He is asked about other similar projects operating and says youth behave well because they have something to do. They take pride in the park and hence look after it. Where such parks exist there have been minimal calls for police activity. His opinion is that it will help keep youth out of trouble. No further questions. Judge:

Thank you Sergeant. You may be seated. Ms Vosso, call your next witness.

Vosso:

I call Georgina Applegate Applegate is called and then sworn in. She is a parent of one of the skaters and is questioned about her interest in the development. She is supportive because kids need more to do. In her eyes they ride skateboards everywhere and this development is highly suited as it is close to home. No further questions.

Judge:

Thank you Ms Applegate. You may be seated. Ms Vosso, call your next witness.

Vosso:

Thank you Your Honour. I call Ace Redding. Ace is called and sworn in by the JSO. You are a keen skater are you not?

Redding:

Yes.

Vosso:

Can you tell the court why you want this facility?

Redding:

Lots of kids like meself are looking for somethin’ to do. Skating is rad but we have nowhere to go. The Police are always telling me an’ me mates off for skating in the Mall and at the school. I want somewhere where I can practise me skating, somewhere that is ours to use.

Vosso:

Are there any other reasons.

Redding:

Yeah. Some of me mates are real good. They could make it to the worlds some day and earn big bucks.

Vosso:

Thank you. Nothing further.

Narrator:

In a fully blown hearing each side may wish to ask questions of the other side’s witnesses. This is called cross-examination and can be a good way of raising doubts about what has been said. During a hearing it is common for the Judge or Commissioners to ask questions of their own in order to gain a more complete picture of the case.

Optional:

Each side may have advisors who act as solicitors. Their role throughout the hearing is to note key points made by each side and provide their barrister or representative with suitable questions and/or a summary. This summary may point out the strengths of their side’s case and weaknesses in the opposition. [Time limit: 2 minute each]

Courts Education Officer Telephone (08) 8204 0452 Mobile 0401715485 Facsimile (08) 8204 8444 E-mail [email protected]