13 décembre 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 11 de 94 Publications
In the recent judgment in Phones 4U Limited (In Administration) v EE Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 2826 (Ch), the judge made some preliminary comments about the judicial assessment of the evidence of factual witnesses. The witnesses in question were giving evidence on events which took place 8-10 years before the trial and where, for some conversations or discussions, there was no direct record, and the surrounding contemporary documents were sparse or sketchy.
The judge referred to a number of previous cases which gave guidance on this issue and in particular the need to exercise caution before placing any weight on the "demeanour" of the witness. In this regard he referenced an earlier case Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited in which one of the judges commented on the unreliability of human memory when it comes to the recollection of events several years ago remarking that : "Two common (and related) errors are to suppose (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2) that the more confident another person is in their recollection, the more likely their recollection is to be accurate".
The judge in the Phones 4U Limited case said that this caution was all the more relevant where the witnesses had undergone witness "training" specifically mentioning two respected providers. He specifically commented that one witness, described by others as "very talkative and effusive", did not give that impression when in the witness box ,commenting that the said witness had received "two sessions of witness training, amounting to about 4-4.5 hours in total ". The judge commented that another witness was "impressive" and had not received witness training suggesting that the witness familiarisation process had cast doubt in his mind on the credibility of the witness who received it.
The Court of Appeal in R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177 recognised the dangers of training or coaching which could change recollections and memories but accepted that this did not preclude pre-trial arrangements to help prepare a witness for the experience of giving oral evidence in court proceedings. Both the Law Society and Bar Council provide guidance on the process of witness familiarisation and include safeguards to ensure the process does not risk contaminating the witness' evidence.
Unfortunately, the judge used the term "training" rather than "familiarisation". Clearly any kind of training is prohibited. Nevertheless, the judge's comments suggest that even the approved form of familiarisation may be viewed negatively by the court when assessing the credibility of a witness' evidence. Whether this is a one-off case or indicative of a wider sentiment amongst judges, it is difficult to say. Further the more recent new witness preparation rules in PD 57AC which are aimed at stopping the process of preparing a statement from altering and influencing the evidence itself suggest that a court will be mindful of any practice which could impact the purity of the evidence given. It is also unclear from the judgment how the judge knew which witnesses had received assistance. It may be that in the future, thought should be given to witnesses explaining in their witness statements the process they have undergone to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the nature of the assistance provided to them.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes and Investigations team.
15 October 2024
par Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16 July 2024
par Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5 July 2024
par Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21 March 2024
par Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1 February 2024
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12 February 2024
par Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
17 October 2023
14 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
4 August 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
par plusieurs auteurs
3 May 2023
par James Bryden
20 April 2023
par James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
par Jessie Prynne
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
par Gemma Broughall
22 September 2022
par Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
par Nick Maday
25 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
6 July 2022
par Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
21 July 2022
par Edward Spencer
27 July 2022
par Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
par Stephanie High
13 June 2022
par Edward Spencer
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
par Stephanie High
31 March 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
21 September 2021
par plusieurs auteurs
13 September 2021
par Edward Spencer
6 September 2021
par Stephanie High
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
26 May 2021
par David de Ferrars
5 May 2021
par Stephen O'Grady
21 April 2021
par Stephanie High
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
par Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
par Stephanie High
12 January 2021
par Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
7 October 2020
par Nick Storrs
26 May 2020
par Edward Spencer
18 May 2020
par Katie Chandler
9 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
21 April 2020
par Stephanie High
11 March 2020
par James Bryden
17 March 2020
par Stuart Broom
26 March 2020
par plusieurs auteurs
26 February 2020
par Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21 February 2020
par Andrew Howell
2 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
16 June 2020
par Georgina Jones
2 July 2020
par Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
par Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
par Katie Chandler
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
par plusieurs auteurs
par Tim Strong et Kate Hamblin
par Katie Chandler et Helen Brannigan
par Tim Strong et Kate Hamblin