The Wolf on Trial

Overview

Students use The Three Little Pigs as a fictional mock court case: are the pigs innocent or guilty of killing the wolf? They will examine self-defence, proportionality, responsibility and the alternative claim that the wolf had asthma. The lesson builds formal oral language skills through evidence-based reasoning, respectful questioning, acknowledging opposing views and presenting clear arguments.

Learning intentions

• WALT plan and deliver formal courtroom presentations for a specific audience and purpose.
• WALT use relevant evidence to support a claim and explain our reasoning.
• WALT acknowledge an opposing view and respond respectfully.
• WALT listen actively and contribute appropriately in a structured discussion.

Success criteria

• I can make a clear claim and support it with evidence from the case file.
• I can ask and answer questions respectfully in role.
• I can explain whether the pigs’ response was proportionate to the threat.
• I can acknowledge another viewpoint before giving a reasoned rebuttal.

Prior knowledge and vocabulary

Students should know the basic events and characters in The Three Little Pigs, and have practised distinguishing a claim from evidence. Briefly clarify:

• Defendant: person or group whose actions are being judged.
• Prosecution: argues that the pigs are guilty.
• Defence: argues that the pigs are not guilty.
• Self-defence: protecting yourself from immediate harm.
• Proportionality: whether the response matches the level of danger.
• Evidence: information used to support a claim.
• Rebuttal: a respectful response to an opposing argument.
• Verdict: the jury’s decision.

The asthma claim is fictional evidence to examine sensitively, not a joke about asthma or disability. Asthma does not automatically make a person innocent or guilty.

Curriculum links

• English Oral Language — Presenting to others: selecting language, structure, tone and content for audience, purpose and form.
• English Oral Language — formal presentations: using evidence, reasoning and respectful questioning.
• English Writing — persuading: introducing a position and organising clear reasons and relevant evidence.
• English Writing — acknowledging opposing views and responding with trustworthy, relevant evidence.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook and WALT. Open with the courtroom hook slide showing the question “A wolf is dead. Were the pigs protecting themselves—or responsible for a killing?” and establish that the story is fictional. Students vote silently innocent, guilty or unsure, then share one reason with a partner.

2. 5–12 min · Case briefing and vocabulary. Use the case briefing and vocabulary slides to retell the relevant events and define key terms. Distribute the mock-trial case file and evidence organiser; students highlight evidence that may support either side. Explain that the wolf’s asthma claim must be discussed respectfully and only as a question of relevance and reliability.

3. 12–20 min · Allocate roles and prepare. Assign groups of five or six: judge, prosecution, defence, three pigs, wolf/medical witness, house-building witness, jury and court reporter. Some roles may be shared. Students use the organiser to prepare an opening statement, two questions, one likely opposing argument and a rebuttal. Display the role instructions and sentence stems. Provide these stems: “Could you explain…?”, “What evidence supports…?”, “I acknowledge that…, however…”, “That evidence may be relevant because…”, and “The opposing side assumes…, but…”.

4. 20–34 min · Trial: openings and examination. The judge opens court. The prosecution and defence each give a one-minute opening statement; the pigs and witnesses give evidence through questioning. Each side asks at least two respectful questions and may cross-examine once. The teacher keeps time, prompts complete sentences and records strong evidence-based reasoning.

5. 34–43 min · Trial: cross-examination and closings. The wolf/medical witness and house-building witness respond to questions about asthma, the wolf’s intentions, the houses, the chimney and the final outcome. The teacher reminds students not to imitate symptoms or use disability as an insult. Each side gives a one-minute closing argument addressing self-defence, proportionality and responsibility. The judge summarises the question before the jury.

6. 43–51 min · Jury deliberation and verdict. The jury uses the deliberation questions and discusses: Was there an immediate threat? Was the pigs’ response necessary? Was it proportionate? Is the asthma evidence reliable and relevant? The court reporter records the claim, strongest evidence and verdict. The jury announces innocent or guilty and gives two reasons; the judge thanks all participants.

7. 51–60 min · Reflection and exit ticket. Students complete the final section of the mock-trial case file and evidence organiser: “My verdict is…”, “My strongest evidence is…”, and “An opposing view is…, but…”. Invite two students to share how their thinking changed. Collect responses as the exit ticket.

Resources

• the mock-court presentation deck
• the mock-trial case file and evidence organiser
• Role cards or board labels for courtroom roles
• Timer and visible classroom seating plan
• Whiteboard and markers
• Optional simple courtroom sign or table labels
• Dyslexia-friendly printed copies and audio/read-aloud version of the case file

Brief case file: The wolf visited three pigs’ homes and blew down the straw and stick houses. The pigs fled to the brick house. The wolf climbed down the chimney and was injured or killed when the pigs placed a hot cooking pot beneath it. The prosecution argues that the pigs set a dangerous trap and caused an unnecessary death. The defence argues that the wolf had destroyed homes, threatened the pigs and entered through the chimney, so the pigs acted in self-defence. A medical witness reports that the wolf may have had asthma, which could have affected his breathing, but this does not prove what caused his death. A house-building witness says the pigs had different materials, purposes and levels of preparation.

Assessment

• During preparation, check that each student has a claim, relevant evidence and a reason explaining the connection.
• During questioning, use a checklist for respectful language, active listening, clear questions and acknowledgement of opposing views.
• Assess the exit ticket for a clear verdict, relevant evidence and a logical rebuttal.

Differentiation

• Support learners with pre-highlighted evidence, role cards, a reduced number of questions, paired rehearsal and sentence stems. Allow students to be court reporter, shared judge or a witness if sustained speaking is challenging.
• Offer the case file in a dyslexia-friendly sans-serif font, large print, wide spacing, short paragraphs and numbered evidence points. Provide text-to-speech, teacher read-aloud, audio recording or a trusted reading partner.
• For EAL learners, pre-teach vocabulary with simple definitions, visuals and oral rehearsal; accept brief notes during speaking.
• Extend advanced learners by requiring a distinction between evidence, inference and assumption, or by asking them to propose a more proportionate alternative response and defend it.