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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll