In the early-1990s a change in procedural rules led to a requirement for the exchange of witness statements in almost all civil litigation. This instantly caused another tier of paperwork handling to be inserted into the pre-trial process. Solicitors and counsel hone and redraft their client's witness statements until they are in a form for exchange with the other side. The aim of this change in the rules was to reduce the time spent in court on the case by removing the need for examination of witnesses in chief. Coupled with the extra requirement for each party to submit skeleton arguments the new rules meant that within thirty minutes of the start of a civil case the first witness can be on the witness stand under cross-examination of his witness statement.

But while this procedural change may have shortened some trials it had three unfortunate consequences. First the work required in production of witness statements for exchange greatly increased the cost of litigation. The witness statement has to be cross-referenced to the documents in the case. This lead to bundles and sub-bundles of extracts from the discovery documents being produced as exhibits to the witness statements - a multiplication of the papers. Second the refinement of witness statements into a form suitable for exchange turned simple narratives into documents which were nearly sophisticated pleadings. The solicitor and counsel refined what each witness says happened - at all time trying to keep within the formal rules which stopped the solicitor and counsel from inventing or slanting the evidence. The preparation of witness statements thus became a very expensive activity. Third, witness statements reduced the effectiveness of cross-examination - the crucible in which the truth of a witness was tested. Following the exchange of witness statements a witness is no longer taken through his personal recollection of events so that the court can observe his demeanor and attitude as he tells his story. He is instead given a copy of his witness statement, asked if it is true and then placed in the hands of the opposing advocate who will immediately cross-examine him on this carefully honed statement. This method of presentation can easily lead to false impressions. The advocate who has to cross-examine will not have seen the witness going though his evidence and will have to start his task 'cold'. If the witness keeps to his statement and this has been skillfully drafted with all the dangerous issues removed, it may be very hard or impossible to establish that the witness is lying or is mistaken.

Click here to continue