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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll