Nerine

I used to take statements in the course of my job and our solicitor would have refused to take a case to court if he even vaguely suspected that the statement had been written on the behalf of a witness.

Neither would I have liked to stand in a witness box and try to explain to the bench why I had put words in a witnesses' mouth when a witness was asked "please explain why you said........" and the reply comes back "oh, I didn't say that, the lady who wrote it for me wrote that!"

p.s.
Never lost a case either

lardyl

yes, but if you do proper interviews with well recorded contemporaneous notes then drafting proofs or statements is a breeze, just make sure the witness knows what they are doing and offer to re-type etc. You need to make the person aware of the whole process from start to finish.

I have had lawyers from some of the largest Firms in the UK/World tell me off for being too honest when identifying myself or cautioning a witness, but I told them where to go!

Even had one ask me to "make sure you don't waive disclosure in the box", I told him what I would say (ie the truth and whole truth), advised him that he had a chance to settle many months before, that Counsel could stand and object to the line of questioning and added that there was no way that I was going to provaracate on a straight question. Simple as - he lost the case and as you say had drafted statements based on very poor notes. Didn't take any of my helpful advice beforehand either.

Luckily when I was asked why I had curtailed my enquiries in respect of other witnesses I could point to a letter telling me to stop work.......phew.

I'd agree that the cases that landed in the drink were all where the solicitors drafted statements for witnesses based on other people's notes or rubbish interviews, etc. Bloody lawyers, also make really bad payers too........

Were you in the school of thought that said "just write what they say" or the other one that says "make the statement make sense if what they say does not"?

Am Loolah

Thanks everyone,

I've written my own stating what normal procedure would be, what I can remember carrying out and what should be on file. Also explaining that I can not remember exact telephone conversations or with whom were carried out - I remember they were, just not the details ... The Bolly plays havoc with my memory!

I don't think it's too big a deal, so I've done what I can as far as I'm concerned.

Nerine

sounds good, that'll be the last you hear of it hopefully.

lardyl

Have you issued the document yet?
I'd still try and get any telepohne notes you may have made and not sign anything before you can read them, hypothetically (if you went to the hearing - unlikely I'd say) they may be disclosed and you could be challenged with them, esp. if you contradict them
often witnesses can say I have my notes of this and that and my statement is based upon them, if the note was made within a reasonable time of the call (AFIK) then the note has legal weight in making a statement, as an aide memoir.....

if it all goes wrong then I suppose you could say, "well its all the Bolly I've inbibed since"..........(not).

But then Nernie may be right......I'm just a pessimist and I used to do work for some really hot lawyers - Google on Michael Mansfield, Pat Finucane and Gareth Pearce, they set you about the other side like an attack dog!

Nerine

Not that you'd want to name drop or anything.......

(hope they don't mind you admitting to this practice on their behalf )

I think Am Loolah has got it pretty sussed.

Nerine

Wasn't he in the New Avengers?

lardyl

helps if you drop the right names too..........got the wrong Pierce, seemed like a nice *lady* on the phone though.......twas a long time ago..........
resists the temptation to bring out the anecdotes...........

malcoltom

Showed this to a mate in the Crown Prosecution Service and he concurs exactly. Apart from the bolly of course.