header-logo header-logo

Witness preparation: time to rethink?

23 June 2017 / James Holden , Thomas Wingfield
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7751_holdenwingfield

Familiarisation does not breed contempt of court, but take care: the limits of permissible witness preparation are not as clear as they should be, caution James Holden & Thomas Wingfield

  • It is generally considered that witness preparation for English civil litigation cannot touch upon the facts of the actual case. In fact, the position is less than clear.

Cases can be won and lost in cross-examination. Even in claims which might not strictly turn on witness evidence, the credibility of the witnesses can colour the credibility of the whole claim. Witnesses provide the face of a corporate party and so influence the attitude of the judge or tribunal to that party. Witness testimony is important.

For the same reason, the limits of permissible witness preparation are important. In English litigation, witness coaching is prohibited. Witness familiarisation, however, is encouraged. But, where is this line drawn?

The Bar Council has maintained a useful note on what it considers permissible. In short, legitimate witness familiarisation involves putting a witness at ease with

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll