13 December 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 18 of 101 Insights
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.
30 January 2025
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
by Katie Chandler and Helen Brannigan
by Tim Strong and Helen Brannigan
by Tim Strong and Kate Hamblin