Appearing as a witness in the High Court, what are the practicalities of this?

[Mpsox]

It looks like that at some stage over the next month or so, I'll be called as a witness in a personal injuries case in the High Court. I've no issue in standing up and stating the facts, but from a practical perspective, what can I expect on the day?. What time do cases start and what time do I need to turn up in Court and do I need to be there all day? Where do I wait before I am called?.

All new to me, so any advice as to what to expect gratefully received

 

[missdaisy]

Hi mpsox. With High Court personal injuries cases solicitors usually have an idea of the week the case will be listed but can't get any more specific than that until a lot closer. You will probably asked to be on call as generally both sides try to talk first and see if a settlement is possible.

I'm not sure where you are based. The Court day starts at 10.30/11 but solicitor will tell you what time you need to be available. I would say the solicitor will meet with you first aswell with the barrister so they know what you have to say as a witness.

You will wait either around the Courthouse or in a consultation room - depends on space really and how many cases are around Courthouse at same time.

Solicitor should be in contact with you about all this, if not ring them and ask them.

 

[nuac]

As Missdaisy says, whatever solicitor asked you to attend would answer those queries.

Be advised that there is an important unwritten rule of practice in that if the court rises for lunch, for the day, or even for the weekend while you are under crossexamination, neither the solicitor not counsel for the party who called you may speak to you without the courts permission. This often leads to misunderstandings.

 

[Complainer]

Be advised that there is an important unwritten rule of practice in that if the court rises for lunch, for the day, or even for the weekend while you are under crossexamination, neither the solicitor not counsel for the party who called you may speak to you without the courts permission. This often leads to misunderstandings.

Why would such an important rule be left unwritten?

 

[onq]

Its unwritten but well-known and your legal team will advise you of this as required.

You're under oath to give evidence before the Court and its well known that you don't talk to the legal team or either side during a recess.

I didn't think it applied just to cross-examination nuac, but I may stand corrected.

As for the basis for it, I always assumed it was about the witness not being interfered with during the giving of testimony.

Once you're "in the box" you're there to give testimony, whether or not lunch gets in the way.

ONQ.

 

[nuac]

Ong, in a case I am aware of which led to a major row between the legal teams it arose during a break in cross-examination. I presume the rationale is to prevent the witness being "guided" as to how some issues that arose be handled.

Complainer, like many rules of legal etiquette it is not written down as the lawyers concerned would be expected to know it and advise appropriately.

 

[Complainer]

Complainer, like many rules of legal etiquette it is not written down as the lawyers concerned would be expected to know it and advise appropriately.

Here's my view as an outside to the system - having unwritten rules of etiquette about something so important is nonsense. I can only guess that the purpose of these 'unwritten rules' is to create a layer of mystique around the whole legal process, and make people feel that their legal team are really special people.

How can lawyers be expected to know 'unwritten rules'? Who can measure anyone's knowledge of an unwritten rule? How can you hope that peole will share the same understanding and interpretation of an unwritten rule?

Is there any good reason why these rules are not written down?

 

[Dachshund]

Much as I hate to correct a fellow lawyer of many years standing, nuac is wrong about it being an unwritten rule.

For Complainer's information, it is one of the rules of the Barrister's Code of Conduct. [broken link removed].
The relevant provisions are as follows: -

"5.18 Barristers may not coach a witness in regard to the evidence to be given.
5.19 A barrister who has asked for leave to recall a witness after luncheon or other recess or the next day should not, without notice to the Court and the other parties, confer with such witness during such recess.
5.20 Barristers shall not confer with a witness that they called while such witness is under cross-examination without prior leave of the other parties or the Court."

 

[Complainer]

Much as I hate to correct a fellow lawyer of many years standing, nuac is wrong about it being an unwritten rule.

For Complainer's information, it is one of the rules of the Barrister's Code of Conduct. [broken link removed].

Thanks - that makes a lot more sense.

 

[Dachshund]

There is a guide on [broken link removed] provided by the DPP that Mpsox might find useful.

Some of a witness's expenses might be covered as well. The OP should ask the solicitor who has called them as a witness. I remember in a Circuit Court case a solicitor grumbling about paying €200 for a witness's expenses (locum doctor) and being told by the trial judge to be thankful that she wasn't a hospital consultant.

 

[McCrack]

Here's my view as an outside to the system - having unwritten rules of etiquette about something so important is nonsense. I can only guess that the purpose of these 'unwritten rules' is to create a layer of mystique around the whole legal process, and make people feel that their legal team are really special people.

How can lawyers be expected to know 'unwritten rules'? Who can measure anyone's knowledge of an unwritten rule? How can you hope that peole will share the same understanding and interpretation of an unwritten rule?

Is there any good reason why these rules are not written down?

Our system of law is common law which is not codified law. It is based on statute and precedent and tradition. Customs and practises have built up over a long period of time that any lawyer would be familiar with through practice. Most people outside the system would have little need or willinginess to know.

 

[Complainer]

Our system of law is common law which is not codified law. It is based on statute and precedent and tradition. Customs and practises have built up over a long period of time that any lawyer would be familiar with through practice. Most people outside the system would have little need or willinginess to know.

Again, as an outsider, this seems to be more of the 'cloak of mystique' that creates barriers for ordinary people. There are hundreds of people attendings the courts each day as witnesses. If there are basic rules like 'don't talk to anyone over lunch', these should be written down, and should be communicated to all witnesses before they arrive.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Mpsox]

Thanks for the advice received. Case was settled about 20 minutes before it was due to be called, and after I sat in the 4 Courts for about 5 hours waiting for it to be called, so a waste of a day in that respect. Following might help anyone else facing a day out in the 4 Courts in the future, especially as a plaintiff

Firstly, do not expect any great degree of privacy before you go in. Although there are consultation rooms, It seemed they need to be booked in advance by your solicitor and there are only a limited number available. Sitting on a bench outside the Law Library at around 10.15, I was astonished at the number of client/solicitor/barrister conversations going on in the open. For example, a solicitor & barrister were speaking to a women next to me and the barrister openly said that she was correct to reject €xk in damages and that they'd be looking for at least another €15k. There just seemed to be a complete lack of privacy.

It also seemed clear that some barristers were only meeting their clients for the first time, which makes me wonder why on earth they are required at all?.

If you are not in an actual Court and are waiting to be called, it's not a very comfortable area and I'd hate to have to wait with anyone infirm/elderly etc.

One thing a solicitor did tell me is that the process seems to be speeding up since the new Criminal Courts opened, which is good for any plaintiffs, but as he said, not so good for barristers, as they have less time for "posturing" (his words). There is a small bar downstairs but that's not much good if you have to go in the witness box. There is also a small very old cafe downstairs.

I have to say that I left with the impression that the whole place and system was designed for barristers and judges and not for the rest of us. For example, why do barristers have to dress as they do and why do they have a posh dining room set aside from everyone else? Why does the tipstaff walk 2 paces in front of the judge carrying an actual staff? Whole place seriously needs bringing into the 20th Century in my mind, not to mind the 21st

 

[Towger]

Whole place seriously needs bringing into the 20th Century in my mind, not to mind the 21st

For a start they could do with putting up a few signs, to the location of various courts/facilities!