Just got out of Advocacy 3. Because of rules governing unfair exam practices I, sadly, can't talk about is content.
I can, however, talk about some of the surrounding issues.
For all of these assessments, as I mentioned last week, BPP hires actors to come along and play witnesses and clients. In the Conference examination, for instance, an actor will be given lots of information, and it's your job to get it out of them.
In Advocacy 2 (Examination in Chief - helping your witness along) and Advocacy 3 (Cross Examination - destroying the souls of all those that oppose you), the actors play the witnesses. My witness was a lovely chap. Funnily, though, this is now the third time I've dealt with him. In the various assessments and mocks that I've seen him he's been an accountant, a kebab van owner and a photographer. When I chatted with him in November he said he's also been on "The Bill". EVERYONE has been on "The Bill". It's been funny watching him try to pull off all these different character for 12 minutes at a time, poor dear.
There is also the issue of typos. Every single exam we've done this year has had some form of serious typo in it. In this case some of the typos actually went to the heart of the matter and affected the defence case. What fun!