Marshalling offers law students a rare opportunity to observe the inner workings of the courtroom up close—often from the Bench itself. By shadowing a judge, students gain a unique perspective on legal proceedings, listening to arguments from both sides and, in some cases, stepping behind the scenes to discuss how decisions are made. For anyone considering a legal career—particularly in advocacy—this experience is both insightful and invaluable.
Yashwini Lokee, a final-year law student at Kent Law School from Mauritius, recently completed a marshalling placement with District Judge Furness at Canterbury Combined Court Centre. She shares her experience ahead of her upcoming graduation.
‘Through the Kent Law School Undergraduate Newsletter, I came across an opportunity to apply for marshalling. I applied, eager to deepen my understanding of courtroom advocacy and gain insight into the day-to-day realities of judicial decision-making. Kent Law School has equipped me over the past three years with the foundational principles of law, and I was curious to see how those principles come to life in a courtroom setting.
A Day at Court: From Theory to Practice
I arrived at Canterbury Combined Court Centre at 9:00 AM and was met by a court clerk who guided me through the security process and into the courtroom. I was then introduced to District Judge Furness, who would be presiding over the day’s trial. From the outset, DJ Furness was welcoming and approachable. He previously worked as a solicitor and had experience in military law, which brought a wealth of insight to our discussions throughout the day.
Before the hearing began, DJ Furness handed me a copy of the case bundle and highlighted the key documents I should focus on. The case concerned a road traffic accident involving several vehicles. What made it particularly compelling was the fact that both parties had presented entirely conflicting accounts of how the collisions occurred. The Claimant alleged that they had been hit from behind by the Defendant. The Defendant, in turn, referred to the sudden braking of another car ahead, adding another layer of complexity to the sequence of impacts.
Proceedings began at 11:00 AM, following some preliminary discussions between counsel. The judge heard arguments from both sides on the issue of liability. Central to the discussion was the Denton principle, particularly with regard to procedural defaults and the seriousness of any breach. The Claimant had failed to disclose key financial documents in a timely manner, but DJ Furness found that the breach was not serious enough to prevent their arguments from being heard.
The core legal issue was whether the Defendant had maintained a safe distance and exercised reasonable care. Through witness cross-examination, it became clear that the Defendant had likely failed to stop in time, despite claiming to have maintained a safe following distance. Interestingly, contributory negligence had not been pleaded by the Defendant, which limited the scope of the defence. After careful consideration of the evidence and referencing the Highway Code, DJ Furness found in favour of the Claimant on the issue of liability.
After a brief break for lunch, court resumed at 1:00 PM for the quantum stage of the trial. This involved assessing the amount of damages to be awarded. The key question here revolved around the credit hire charges claimed by the Claimant as well as their impecuniosity—whether they truly lacked the financial means to hire a replacement car themselves.
The Claimant provided bank statements and explained their decision. The judge examined both the financial evidence and the practical decisions made by the Claimant in the aftermath of the accident. Despite some inconsistencies and gaps in disclosure, the Claimant was found to be impecunious, and the hire charges were allowed in full.
After court adjourned, DJ Furness took the time to discuss his reasoning behind the judgment with me. It was illuminating to see how much thought, precision, and care goes into judicial decisions. He explained what elements of each party’s argument were persuasive, and how he approached the burden of proof in light of conflicting testimony and documentary evidence. It reinforced my appreciation for the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fairness and legal integrity.
Throughout the day, I had the opportunity to ask questions on topics ranging from Dispute Resolution to judicial training. DJ Furness provided thoughtful and candid responses, particularly about the evolving role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and how people skills—such as empathy, clear communication, and emotional intelligence—are crucial in managing courtroom dynamics. That emphasis on human understanding is something I hope to embody as I progress through my legal career.
He also discussed the importance of balancing the parties’ individual characteristics and behaviours with an unwavering commitment to impartiality and procedural fairness. At the end of the day, justice must be delivered in a way that is tailored to each case, which means ensuring judicial reasoning aligns not only with precedent but also with broader principles of fairness, dignity, and respect.
Final Thoughts
I left the courtroom with a renewed appreciation for the complexity of legal practice. DJ Furness exemplifies what it means to approach the law with both analytical precision and genuine humanity—an approach that I aspire to uphold in my own journey through the legal profession.
I wish to encourage any law students to make the most of such opportunities provided to us as they offer a rare, first hand look into the practical application of legal theory, the art of advocacy, and the human side of justice.’