Bond Solon Reviews

excellent course.

Good course and good booklet.

A fantastic course. Fays knowledge is extensive and extremely helpful. She has great teaching skills and I have learnt so much. Thank you Fay

Examples were very interesting, more may help although I appreciate that timing is tight

Improved confidence in legal matters

Thank you very much indeed for the informative and excellent course. This has provided me with a lot to consider and I feel much better equipped to write my first report now.

Great course

thanks very much for a very informative day, this will help me develop my expert witness role

very positive experience

• Reasonable Accommodations not made for my disability. I asked for training materials before hand and a manual was provided. The presenter also used a selection of slides. When I asked him to share them he said no. I asked again but he would not and I was not comfortable explaining why a printed copy would help my disability. • Providing some incorrect information and not willing to be politely challenged / asked about it: o For example, when explaining the Dunning Kruger principle he then explained imposter syndrome as the opposite. This is something I am quite interested in so I put my hand up and tried to explain that this principle covers imposter syndrome as well. However, before I could finish my first sentence, he cut me off and spoke over me loudly stating that I was wrong. I tried to speak again, and he did the same. o The perjury Act. He had an explanation in his slide which wasn’t entirely correct. I do not fully understand why but another delegate with a law degree explained to me that his explanation was wrong and potentially spreading legal misinformation. • Avoided answering questions he did not know the answer to. For example, I asked him what a solicitor might say in our interviews because they are civil not criminal. He responded giving criminal examples. He then asked if that answered my question and I explained that those examples did not apply to us and he agreed. He then screenshared the criminal legislation about solicitors provided in the manual and talked through that. o It would have been fine for him to say I don’t know, but he didn’t. • Did not consider that we are not criminal prosecutors / the police, for example: o Heavily referred to criminal law even when asked “how would this apply to us” o Used language such as “the suspect”, “pass it to a decision maker” (we make the initial decisions with cases”, and when you are “gathering evidence”. This would have been fine if he then gave an example relevant to us. • Training materials included some irrelevant material to us, such as No Comment interviews, and Solicitors rights. In particular we spent 20 minutes of the course explaining how to use teams for an interview which would not require an expert training session and did not feel like the best use of our time. Overall the presenter was very knowledgeable, but was not comfortable answering difficult questions (he is clearly an expert on criminal side but does not have reasonable knowledge about civil), and had a tendency to interrupt / speak over multiple delegates. The course materials were well structured and informative but included a large amount of less relevant material.