How do I feel about the collaborative work we’ve done?

Students taking the third year Legal Process option on the law degree at the University of the West of England run a simulated civil case from client interview through to (hopefully) a negotiated settlement. Three small groups act for the claimant (or applicant), three for the defendant (or respondent).

The students themselves select the members of their group for the civil case. For the simulated criminal case which follows, we require the groups to reconstitute with at least 50% different personnel, three groups working as the Crown Prosecution Service and three acting for the defence. Below is a selection of individual students’ thoughts and feelings on working in groups on the criminal case.

See What do students think about small group work? for more.

Student 1

The criminal case file has been a lot of hard work in a short space of time but very rewarding. It has brought out my best qualities – organisation, timekeeping, compassion, public speaking and research.
 
I was very lucky to find myself, when looking for a group, with M. I worked with her on the civil case and would happily work with her on every project I ever work on. She is not afraid of hard work and is able to look at a problem from a different perspective than others and provide us with a different viewpoint.
 
We joined up with N and N, who had also worked together on the civil case. We had talked to them whilst doing the civil case and knew that they, as well as us, had had difficulties with group members not pulling their weight. We seemed to be a good group and were happy to work together.
 
Initially, it was strange working with new people. M and I knew what had worked well for our civil group and it made sense to us to want to continue to do those things. However, the same was true for N and N. We made sure that throughout the case we had regular meetings, even if it was just over a cup of coffee, to ensure everyone was happy with the way things were progressing. We really didn’t have any conflict within our group, which was great after the tensions of the civil case.
 
The real difficulties we did have were with the defence team we were against. Two of their members were people who had caused conflict in the civil cases, and they still seemed to feel very badly towards us. They were unhelpful and very rude throughout the whole process, Silly things like putting dates on letters that were not accurate in any way and only giving us the plea and direction hearing form two minutes before it started to make us look bad really bothered us all.

Student 2

My lack of assertiveness was a problem in a group filled with headstrong characters. I think I solved this problem quite well by volunteering to do tasks alone and then e-mail to the others for amendments. I think I also pushed us forward time wise as working alone seems to end up more productive as the mind is more focused when not distracted by the gossip of the night before or plans for later that week!
 
I would admit that towards the end my role become increasingly submissive to keep the peace. This was particularly true to the drafting of the indictment. I felt that on the evidence we had combined with previous case law (there has never been a successful prosecution of HIV transmission under s.18!) that a s.18 charge was inappropriate. It is part of the duty of the CPS to prosecute the right offences and in this case I argue that intent could never have been close to being proven. As Christine cannot be seen to have intended to transmit something she didn’t know she had, the charge should have automatically been dropped to a section 20. This was communicated to my firm on numerous occasions but was not undertaken. I did feel quite frustrated by this and at the same time just hoped they knew what they were doing!
 
As a group I think we worked well towards achieving the final goal although L was very happy to take charge often without listening to the opinions of all other members, though she was organised I found her approach made me feel stressed and under undue pressure. J was the calming team member and I found her approach helpful without being patronising, very professional. D was laidback and hardworking and happy to help or take on tasks alone but occasionally slightly vague as to what needed to happen next.
 
I think our group would have greatly benefited from research or practical experience of the process as it did occasionally feel like we were drifting and I was lost as to how the procedure works in practice. As a team member I think due to my interest in the topic I was keen to push the boundaries both in terms of the case and other peoples thinking which was not always appreciated. I did this by altering the facts to explore where peoples boundaries and opinions lay. However at times of stress I think others were slightly closed minded (and more realistic?) and thought I was diverging from the point.
 
In the group I think I spent a lot of time looking at the areas we cover on the Evidence module as it was familiar and acted as putting my learning into practice. However I was sorry not to have taken part more fully in other new areas. However I think the people were put to their best areas so in a way that formed a balance and hopefully each area is at the highest level it can be.
 
Given the opportunity again, what alterations or improvements could be made? I think if I were to work in this group again I would have tried to take a more active role and been assertive from the outset. I would definitely have pushed points I believed to be important without letting it build up. Organisation was not good and if this task were to happen again I would have made a better attempt to organise all the paperwork and spend more time looking over it.

Student 3

In my opinion, initially, the group did not seem to work together very well as we failed to negotiate and define individual tasks. In the Legal Process ‘personality type’ questions, it became apparent that I am a researcher and, having received the initial interview notes, I looked up case law relating to Dica, and followed it through in Konzani, the case which clarified the position of informed consent. I e-mailed my research to the other members but I was told that this had already been done, although I did not know this.
 
For my own benefit, I needed to find out about HIV and discover what the implications and seriousness of transmitting the virus are. I think this was a useful exercise as at least I have some, if limited, knowledge of this now.
 
Both D and I, in our previous groups, had been responsible for letter drafting and writing so again, initially, there was confusion as to who would be responsible for the letters. L and D wanted to meet up in order to draft and write letters, which had worked well for them in their previous groups. I thought that meeting up was a waste of time when it could all be done over the Internet, as in my last group. N was of the same opinion.
 
However, I was willing to try the letter writing their way, but found it difficult as there were too many distractions to contend with, and I considered it a waste of valuable time. I have to admit that I prefer to reserve meetings for important matters where face to face communication is essential, such as idea forming etc, and where there is some form of agenda. This is because I find it easier to balance more effectively the time spent travelling to and from university on my family responsibilities and, at the time, I wanted to maximise the time spent on my dissertation module.
 
Another challenge for the group was that one member of the team did not have computer access at home and, in complete contrast, I do not use the university computers.
 
I was probably viewed as being ‘obstructive’ and ‘stubborn’ when other members attempted to set up meetings on the days that they attended university, days which I had no need to attend, so I would refuse to. I did make the offer that they came to my house for a meeting but was understandably refused as it would mean three people travelling, rather than the one.
 
This was very quickly resolved by agreeing that our group would split into two sub-groups working together and collectively. L and D would meet and draft letters and N and I would e-mail letters for approval which we knew would be picked up on specific days. Although the issue of drafting and writing letters was resolved, I made a conscious decision that I would run the risk of being unpopular if meant that my deadlines and home responsibilities were met.
 
Overall, after initial challenges, I feel that the group worked very well together and that I have made some more new friends. Although it is always hard to form groups, after initial challenges we worked it out and got along extremely well. I hope that the other members feel I have been a valid team member and will all keep in touch in the future.

Student 4

When initially choosing my group for the criminal case I was very conscious of choosing people that I knew would put the work and effort in. This is because I had problems with a certain person not turning up to meetings and leaving all the work to the other group members in my civil case group. I was aware of the fact that K and I had worked very effectively together in the previous case and therefore was keen to remain in the same group. I also knew that A and F had encountered problems with their previous group and hence I knew that they would put the work in. Therefore I was happy with our group when we first formed and needless to say throughout all of the case work.
 
I don’t think a particular leader was established in this group. We all decided from the beginning that more difficult work would be done as a group and easier tasks could be divided evenly between group members and improved through communication over e-mail or if problems arose that needed proper discussion this would take place in one of our meetings. We felt that it was important to keep minutes of our meetings so that we could refer back to them if needs be and to show how we progressed with the case. There were no real disagreements within the group and when differing opinions did arise we decided on a majority decision.
 
As a group I feel that we have been organised, we have held regular meetings and progressed consistently. If I had to identify a problem in the criminal case this would be with the defence team who seem to have taken the case as a war between the two sides. We have been pleasant in all of our communication and this does not seem to have been reciprocated. They have not disclosed information to us on time and complained in the plea and directions hearing that they had got the witness statements too late, I would like to point out that at this point we had received no witness statements whatsoever from their team, or a defence statement. I was also quite concerned to find that the defence team have been backdating their correspondence with us since the beginning of the case so if dates do not match up this is why.

Last Modified: 3 August 2010