header-logo header-logo

20 November 2015 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7677 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Why is it worth it?

nlj_7677_solon

Mark Solon considers the benefits of witness familiarisation

Witness familiarisation is a process that has become very popular over the past few years, but which is sometimes misunderstood by lawyers and the courts. It is sometimes confused with the idea of witness coaching which is absolutely prohibited by the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

Witness familiarisation, however, is perfectly permissible. It familiarises a witness, lay or expert, with the theory, practice and procedure of giving evidence, but without coaching them in any way on the content of that evidence.

Giving evidence and being cross-examined before a court can be daunting for even the most brave-hearted. Preparing witnesses for what to expect is therefore crucial to ensure they are not disadvantaged by ignorance of the process. Many practitioners realise the importance of supporting witnesses and there has been much commentary of the importance of witnesses not being harassed in court.

Reasonable cost?

Solicitors and barristers are permitted, within the rules, to prepare witnesses but when the preparation is provided by

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll