Presentation skills: Introductions and conclusions

The most important point to remember about the introduction and conclusion of the presentation is that they have a job to do in telling the audience something about the presentation. The introduction tells them what to expect: it should identify the subject matter of the presentation and explain the stages that are going to be followed in order to talk about that subject matter. The conclusion should draw together the points that you have made and demonstrate how they answer the question posed by the presentation.
You have probably heard the old joke about the three stages of a presentation: (1) tell them what you’re going to tell them, (2) tell them what you want to tell them, and (3) tell them what you’ve told them. This corresponds to the introduction (what are you going to talk about), the main body (content), and the conclusion (what you have talked about) of the presentation.
The introduction is particularly important as it orientates the audience to what they can expect to hear from you. Think about your own lectures. It is very confusing if your lecturer dives straight into the substance of the lecture without giving it a context. Remember that you need to tell the audience what you are going to talk about and give them a clue as to the structure that you are going to follow. This might sound like the introduction to an essay and, to a great extent, it does fulfil the same role but you must use good spoken English for your presentation rather than good written English. Things that you would write in an essay rarely sound as effective when they are spoken so aim for a presentation style which is chatty and informative without being overly formal.

Suggestions for introductions

Presentation 1: Has the Human Rights Act 1998 eroded Parliamentary sovereignty?

Introduction 1

The topic of this presentation is the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Parliamentary sovereignty. In order to give this subject a little context, I will start by outlining the traditional view of Parliamentary sovereignty—what you could call the Dicean view—and then spend a little time explaining some general points about the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Once I’ve covered these points, I’ll bring them together by tackling the central question that this presentation asks which is whether the Human Rights Act has eroded Parliamentary sovereignty.

Introduction 2

I’ve been asked today to consider whether the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 has eroded Parliamentary sovereignty—that is, is Parliament less sovereign now than it was before the Act was introduced. Although I am working on the assumption that you are all familiar with the traditional view of sovereignty, I will take a few moments at the beginning of the presentation to remind you of its key features before moving on to consider whether this has been eroded by the Human Rights Act.

Presentation 2: The right to silence

Introduction 1

[Silence for thirty seconds looking at the audience]. What do you think of my presentation so far? Not very informative, is it? In some situations, when information is needed in order to investigate a crime, silence—the failure to speak—can be really obstructive. However, compelling someone to speak to incriminate themselves goes against one of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. It is this dilemma that is at the heart of my presentation today as I shall explore some of the key issues associated with the right of a person arrested of an offence to remain silent in the face of police questioning. In doing this, I will give a brief historical overview of the right to silence, consider the limitations placed upon that right by legislation, and then consider how the courts have interpreted this legislation. I will conclude by commenting on the extent of the right to silence today.
Introduction 2
The law of evidence seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of society—to be protected from criminal activity by the apprehension and prosecution of offenders—and the rights of an individual accused of criminal wrongdoing. The tension between these two conflicting rights is particularly evident in relation to the right to silence. Should those accused of wrongdoing be granted protection against self-incrimination that is enshrined in the right to silence or should this right be removed in the interests of society? This presentation will explore this issue, taking into account legislation and its interpretation.

Suggestions for conclusions

Presentation 1: Has the Human Rights Act 1998 eroded Parliamentary sovereignty?

Conclusion 1

To wrap things up, I have demonstrated today that there has been some impact on Dicey’s traditional definition of Parliamentary sovereignty. There are some constraints upon the ability of Parliament to make or unmake any law that it chooses due to the requirement that a statement of compatibility must be attached to each new enactment and it therefore follows that there is a competing body that, at least, has a significant influence on the content of legislation. However, as this situation was facilitated by the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, it can only be assumed that these changes are a reflection of what Parliament desires so it does not seem reasonable to view them as an erosion of sovereignty but to see them as the operation of sovereignty in action.

Conclusion 2

In conclusion, it is clear that the Human Rights Act has eroded sovereignty. Parliament’s freedom to legislate as it chooses without interference from any other body has been altered and it is now unable to make any decision on the content of legislation without at least taking Convention rights into account. The interpretive powers of the courts can alter the meaning of legislation even if it is clear that this is contrary to the intention of the legislature. However, before we conclude that Dicey would be turning in his grave at this dramatic erosion of his view of sovereignty, we must remember that the Human Rights Act 1998 itself is only a piece of legislation. Thus, if the situation that it created was no longer to Parliament’s liking, it could be repealed and the traditional approach to sovereignty reinstated. As such, Parliament is, and will always remain, the ultimate sovereign.

Presentation 2: The right to silence

Conclusion 1

It seems, then, that we have an anomalous situation with regards to the right to silence. The legislature clearly intended to limit this right by allowing an adverse impact to be drawn from the defendant’s silence but the courts have interpreted this to exclude situations in which a defendant’s legal representative reads a prepared statement thus rendering the provision entirely ineffective if the defendant and his solicitor choose to negate it in this way. It seems that the legislature and the courts are in conflict in this area of law which suggests that the position should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Conclusion 2

As we have seen, the legislation aimed to limit the instances in which a defendant could remain silent in the face of police questioning by ensuring that this would be brought to the attention of the court. There were sound reasons for this: a guilty person should not be able to hide behind silence to avoid the consequences of his actions and an innocent person should speak out so that he can be eliminated from the police enquiry so that the true offender can be found. It is in the interests of society that the police must have sufficient powers to investigate offences and the law should reflect this by ensuring that all persons must cooperate fully by answering questions put to them by the police. There is so much to favour this position that this is surely an instance in which the rights of the suspect should be trumped by the interests of society.