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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll