Witness Statement

[XY224]

Following a recent accident I have asked to write a witness statement.

Is there any official/formal guide or document which explains how a witness statement should be written? i.e. a particular order of topics?

Having looked on the AAIB website and web/forum searches I've not come across anything.

Many Thanks for any help.

[gasax]

I'm not aware of any specific advice on this. From a variety of accident investigations that I have been involved in my comments / suggestions would be;

Say where you were and what you were doing. Say - in the best order you can what you actually saw - not an interpretation, a commentry - just what you saw. If you did something then you'll have to weave that into your sequence of events. If you have any relevent skills mention them.

Far too many of the statements I have dealt with are full of assumptions and interpretation. That largely devalues them and makes anyone assessing them wary.

And of course most people have a position or viewpoint and that does tend to 'colour' their view of the events.

For the 'best' outcome i.e. one that aids the investigators to get to the most accurate interpretation just state what you saw. Don't worry that in many cases it is incomplete or only tells part of the story - that is nearly always the case. No one knows all the information about someone else's actions.

Anyone who gives me the complete story is almost guaranteed to making part of it up!

[maxdrypower]

Is this a witness statement involving an aircraft ??
Witness statements should be taken by an appropriate authority ie the police or maybe even the AAIB .
They are generally required to present written evidence which may later be required in court.
They should be signed and dated and the signature should confirm an understanding of the legislation laid down in the relevant acts (criminal justice and magistrate courts act)
It is very rare , and in fact I have never heard of anyone completing one unaided with the exception of people like store detectives in the case of shoplifters .
They are normally taken by the authority and written for you .you then read, sign and agree correct .
There are many rules regarding evidence and admissibility of evidence and most of this will be missed if the author is not trained to be a statement taker.
Ask specifically exactly what the requestee wants from you and how they wish to go about it .Any probs pm me and I will try and help.
If you wish to look at a police witness statement form have a google search looking for police form MG11 there will e an example on here somewhere im sure.

[WorkingHard]

remember please that when completed and signed it is NOT your property and you are legally not allowed a copy. Make sure you write it out in duplicate if you wish to remember what you said/wrote.

[maxdrypower]

Yep thats one of the rules , you would however be given a copy prior to any appearance in court although this could be on the day .

[gasax]

Be very cautious in terms of 'what the requestee wants of you'. The advice given is sound - my point is that you must not over extend yourself - be that interpretation, opinion, whatever. Facts only.

If this is simply a description of what happen in a non-contentious situation then there are probably no issues. But in an aircraft context the CAA (or rather their enforcement chaps - usually retired plod) do not have a great reputation. What you saw and heard unless you are being asked in an 'expert role' in which case you shouldn't need advice!

[charliegolf]

Maxdry:

They are normally taken by the authority and written for you .you then read, sign and agree correct .


Did that once, and wasn't happy with the way I was 'questioned' (see the post above) as it went along. I will not give a statement again unless I write it myself.

CG

[maxdrypower]

Well that is something you should have addressed there and then , or at least not signed it , if you signed it you must have agreed with what was written .Remember you cannot be forced to make a statement .
The problem with persons making their statements themselves is that if a court case is required most of their evidence is written of as inadmissable as it doesnt conform with the rules of evidence and then you lose the case or the potential evidence . You may not particualrly like the person taking your statement or the organisation for which they work , but as said it is voluntary and you can say what you want and do not have to sign anything .
Remember in court its your statement and your signature .
Read thoroughly what you have dictated and only sign it if you are happy

[charliegolf]

Maxdrypower,

Absolutely, but I was more deferential and naive back then. I was being led along by a policeman. Thankfully, it didn't go to court (though I did, as requested, only to be the only one they 'forgot' to tell about the adjournment).

CG

[Pilot DAR]

Lots of good advice...

Add to that: DO NOT say what you do not KNOW first hand.

Pilot DAR

[Whopity]

Following a recent accident I have asked to write a witness statement. Then whoever you asked, should arrange to take a statement from you! It is not normal to write your own statement unless you have been invited to act as an expert witness, in which case you will invariably be given documents, questions and other statements to comment upon.

If it is in relation to a small claim or insurance issue then there are numerous examples on the web.

[Justiciar]

The first question is who is asking for the statement. The form may differ depending on what it is to be used for. Statements for use in criminal proceedings have a fixed format in England, with a view to them being tendered in evidence at a trial. Statements for use in civil proceedings will not follow the same format. I suspect this is a "statement" similar to what the police now send out to witnesses because they have not got the man power to take a proper statement. You may find that if your account is relevant to any proceedings someone will come and take a more formal statement later.

statements should be expressed in the first person and only relate what you saw yourself. anything else is hearsay and should not be in the statement, unless it is something which someone told you which needs to be in to explain your own subsequent actions.

A word of warning: were you involved in the accident? If so, then depending on the circumstances you must be wary of incriminating yourself in the statement. If you think there is any chance that you may be in the firing line then don't give a statement without taking advice first.

[Justiciar]

As long as it's true it doesn't matter what order or format it's in

at the early statges of a case or investigation that may be true. However, if being used in formal criminal proceedings the statement must have a declaration from the witness that he understands that if it is false and it is tendered in criminal proceedings he will be liable to a fine or imprisonment; in civil proceedings it requires to have a "statement of truth". I suspect that this is very early stages so what they are after is an initial account. However, if called upon to later make a more formal statement it is important that the two do not contradict each other as both will be discloseable in any proceedings.

The point about self incrimination still stands though, irrespective of the form of the statement.

[WhiskJockeyCobby]

I'm ex-plod (retired). PM me. I'll be happy to help you write it.

Cobby

[LateFinals]

Good advice here.

My tuppence:

1. List fact only and not opinion, a clear chronology of what you saw / your actions is needed.

2. Ask for AOPA's advice at an early stage, Martin Robinson is very helpful. Any pilot not a member should, IMHO join ASAP.

3. Only put in a statement what you are prepared to swear under oath as fact.


LF

[mightynimbus]

Ex plod from years back, alsways remember the mantra for writing statements (witness) Place, Date, Time, I Was, I Saw, Idid!In other words, At the airfield on tues 23 March 2009 about 12.00 midday I was .........., when I saw.............. and as a consequence I did................Piece of cake - NOT

[Fuji Abound]

Well that is something you should have addressed there and then , or at least not signed it , if you signed it you must have agreed with what was written .Remember you cannot be forced to make a statement .
The problem with persons making their statements themselves is that if a court case is required most of their evidence is written of as inadmissable as it doesnt conform with the rules of evidence and then you lose the case or the potential evidence . You may not particualrly like the person taking your statement or the organisation for which they work , but as said it is voluntary and you can say what you want and do not have to sign anything .
Remember in court its your statement and your signature .
Read thoroughly what you have dictated and only sign it if you are happy


Accurate if rather naive.

3. Only put in a statement what you are prepared to swear under oath as fact.

I think you will find the witness statement must include a statement of truth in any event under civil rules.

[maxdrypower]

naive , hmmmm I think not , unless of course the subject is weak minded or they really do use thumbscrews on you

[Fuji Abound]

naive , hmmmm I think not , unless of course the subject is weak minded or they really do use thumbscrews on you


Well obvioulsy you would think not, otherwise you would not have said it.

However there is plenty of evidence to suggest that witness statements are often not an accurate reflection of events, or, for that matter, a reflection of the account of the witness.

If they were I suppose examination of the witness would be redundant. :)

[Justiciar]

However there is plenty of evidence to suggest that witness statements are often not an accurate reflection of events, or, for that matter, a reflection of the account of the witness.

This is absolutely right. There has been research over the years about this. Most statements in criminal matters are written by police officers and tend to reflect what the officer wants them to say. I have cross examined many witnesses over the years on inconsistency between their statements and their oral evidence. Usually I found that the police wrote the statement and that the witness barely if at all read it before signing. Even if they know something is wrong they will ofton not want to argue the point with the police officer.

Interestingly, in Scotland, the defence always take their own statements from witnesses, even prosecution witnesses and statements given to the police cannot be used to cross examine a witness as the courts presume that it is written in the police's words and not the witnesses (if this procedure has changed I apologise to any Scotish lawyers who may be reading this!).

[deltayankee]

There has been research over the years about this...

Absolutely. The written statement often doesn't reflect what the witness said and what the witness said often doesn't reflect what really happened. Google "Elizabeth Loftus" for some eye opening stuff.

[Justiciar]

Google "Elizabeth Loftus" for some eye opening stuff

This is not the same thing. This refers to induced infant memories by hypnosis and other techniques. What we are referring to is simple misdrafting of statements so that they do not reflect what the witness actually saw and heard.

Some have suggested that all witnesses statements should be recorded rather than written. Needless to say this was not attractive to the government, who worried about the cost.

[deltayankee]

...induced infant memories...


I was not thinking of the infant memories work but rather the car crash witness studies (see Reconstruction of automobile destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_automobile_destruction))

Like I said: something happens; you think you have seen something else and then the police write what they wished you had seen.

[IO540]

Many years ago, pre-CPS, I got stitched up by a copper who came in to my office alleging that some 6 months previously my car (a pool car) was seen within the confines of a pelican crossing. I admitted that I was one of the drivers but also said there were other drivers. No record was available of who had the car on the day. Nobpdy knew of the offence or of the ticket allegedly attached the windscreen.

He wrote up a statement, signed by himself, that I admitted to parking there on the day in question.

The solicitor, seeing this and a statement from a traffic warden confirming the vehicle etc, told me there is no point in contesting it, so I didn't. These days, I would no matter what it cost because it stank.

So I think the changes over the years were for the better. The police used to be able to totally take the micky, especially on offences where no independent evidence was needed for a conviction or where the solicitor was likely to advise a G plea just to keep life simple for all - basically all motoring offences.

[maxdrypower]

IO man , Pre CPS thats is at least early 70's isnt it , things have changed dramatically since then , any copper who served during the seventies will tell you that Life on Mars was a pretty accurate reflection of police work back in the day , most will argue that is was a much better system indeed.
Unfortunately in this modern age this is the system we have and until something better comes along we are stuck with it .
The whole statement taking process relies heavily on good deal of integrity from both parties concerned . As has been argued if the police take it some may say it will be biased toward what the police wish to hear , likewise if the defence take it it will biased thus .
It was hypothesised by Mr F, Abound that if statements were accurate refelections no cross examinataion would be necessary , in this modern age we have sych things as video interviews that are as accurate a representation as you can get , however they are still subject to cross exams .
The guilt or innocence of a person in a case in this country mostly comes down to a decent brief . It matters not one jot what the statement says or the accuracy of it , the advocate will put an already nervous person on the back foot right from the off and use clever word play to try and get them to say what he wishes to hear , and mostly it works , even police officers who have been there a hundred times can still be tongue tied , this does not lower the integrity of the evidence being given but makes out that it could mean something else .
I have seen horrendous offences commited on CCTV and offenders have gotten off due to clever barristers who make a previously horrified jury think twice about what they have seen . If you doubt what I say go and have a sit in a crown court during a good trial , a good public order or S18 assault should do it , it almost appears like it shouldnt be allowed .
Such is life and we unfortunately have to live with it Remember in the UK the law protects the guilty and not the innocent law abiding citizen .

[IO540]

Late 70s, and another hilarious (motoring) one in 85.

I have no "experience" since those days but my guess is that motorists used to routinely get fixed up and perhaps still do because few of them want to put much money into avoiding 3-5 points, but some serious offenders get off because they get a good barrister on legal aid.

[maxdrypower]

If I could just try and instill abit of confidence in the masses although it aint realitically going to happen . I was a Road Policing (Fancy word for Traffic) cop for many many years . Neither myself nor anyone I ever worked with ever gave a ticket for speeding to someone who wasnt . Youve all driven on the motorway and youve seen how folk drive , why would a copper really want to stop you for speeding if you werent ??????
Obviously every job has its assholes and the cops sometimes dont do themselves any favours , ie , ticketing people eating butties parked at traffic lights , albeit it is still an offence common sense and a sense of decency and purpose should stop this in its tracks , however it doesnt always wrok like that. Dont tar the whole lot with the same brush .
Bobbies dont get extra pay , promotion or slap on the back for doing many many tickets and the money does not go to the police it goes to the govt .
Yes some forces give quotas again performance indictors dictated by you know who , but they are so low any officer could effectively fill their quota in the space of and hour .
But again you may well meet a jobsworth ******** , especially if you drive north of south wales and west of cheshire , ahh Brunstrom theres a switched on guy.:ugh::ugh:
And for the record I never gave a single speeding ticket aside from the two I did when being trained to do em , and I am very proud of that. I did however put away 14 persons who had killed others as a result of their drinking and drug induced erratic driving , despite , and this brings me back to the pioint of the thread , clever barristers trying to turn the juries mind toward reasonable doubt , insinuating that because the Forensic gadgie who analysed the blood sample had been out for a meal on the staurday night prior to testing that he himself was unfit , desperate but they will try anything.
Rant over and IO I apologise for the failings of my 1970's cohorts

[Final 3 Greens]

Talking of hilarious motoring incidents, I got done for speeding in Swindon.

The female PC wrote the wrong model of car and her handwriting on the ticket was so cr*p that the reg number was ambiguous.

So I went to court and was asked 'were you the driver of a VW Golf car index number 6XXX XXX?

'No I answered, I was the driver of a VW Passat car index number GXXX XXX.'

Not surprisingly,the case was dismissed and the police had to pay my costs :-)

[maxdrypower]

And there is your easiest get out , always check the ticket thoroughly , most common one is dates .

[stickandrudderman]

MDP
I could write a book on my experiences with Plod, 99% of it bad.
Traffic cops get it in the neck most because that's most people's point of contact, and offences are often considered by the perp to be insignificant.
Most of my negative experiences have been at the hands of plain old bobbies who are on a power trip.
EG:
Driving out of London at 11PM on a Saturday night on the A40, a three lane carriageway.
Two young bobbies in a marked Fiesta are driving along at exactly 40mph (the speed limit) in the middle lane and a nice long queue of traffic is building steadily behind them.
I'm in the outside lane with my cruise control set at approx 44mph.
I elect to continue at this speed and dare to overtake the Fiesta.
This does not go down well with the delicate egos of the two young occupants, who immediately employ questionable driving standards and pull me over.
"Do you know why you've been stopped?"
"I've no idea!"
"Because you were doing 55mph in a 40mph speed limit"
"That's bollocks Mate!"
"Well I was doing 50 and you went past me"
"Why were you doing that? The speed limit down here is 40mph"
"Under the power vested in me by government statute I am entitled to break the speed limit"
"You are entitled to brake the speed limit when attending an emergency, and since you've got time to stop me at this particularly busy hour and fabricate charges of speeding I suggest that you're not attending an emergency"
A lengthy discussion ensued and I was eventually allowed to continue my journey, but this episode perfectly illustrates why the relationship between the police and the public is a poor one.
As I said, I could go on and on about it........
However, it can be summed up with one simple question:
What have the police ever done for us?:)

[maxdrypower]

Aha SARM I have missed our pythonesque jolly caped banterings .
You hit the nail on the head , the main problem with the job today is the young uns , It is full of young dum and full of cxm bucks who like the uniform like the power and just want to be seen driving around in big fast cars . They have very little experience and arent really keen to get any , but who cares Im well out of it now whohoooooo.
But I do think you will find that the police not only provide security , but are more than responsible for public health, the aquaduct, roads etc etc

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah yes, speeding tickets. I wonder if Northants constabulary still think they'll win an argument about speed measurement accuracy with a Flight Test Engineer. That was stressful, but I won! A sarcastic point on my part but it seems to me that policemen with a high level of skill in evidence acquisition tend to end up in CID, not in traffic.



On another point, I've been a witness quite a few (8ish) times in respect of various aviation legal cases - once a real witness (found guilty and deserved it for taxiing an aeroplane along the grass in a busy public park), and all other occasions an expert witness.

It's a fun process when you aren't personally affected and can set aside the fact that there's a human tragedy behind it and just think about the technical aspects. That said, it's also vitally important (and very difficult) as an expert witness to suspend any sympathy or antipathy for either side and just concentrate on telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Insist on it - say everything you are aware of, and refuse to submit or sign a statement until you personally are absolutely happy it is complete and true. No other approach is honest to yourself or anybody else, or frankly more difficult - taking this route is painful and time consuming, and rarely makes you friends, but utterly necessary for your own conscience.

G

[maxdrypower]

Genghis , how very dare you !!!
All police officers are trained in evidence acquisition , the ones who end up in CID are invariably the ones who like sitting in interview rooms collating and processing such evidence rather than actually being the ones who collect it in the first place .
What is the difference between investigating a murder and investigating a fatal car accident ??? Nil the procedures are the same . Only RTA's are investigated by Traffic officers .
Dear me Genghis Im hurt
Although dont tell anyone I was only in traffic by title I got merged froma vehicle crime unit , bazdads!!! I hate traffic too

[IO540]

I think, maxdrypower, the problem with the traffic police used to be not that they framed up a totally innocent and unconnected individual who they randomly picked off the street, but rather they caught somebody who was not exactly an angel on the road, and set him up to look like a total maniac.

I was once caught doing a wheelspin. OK, that was "driving w/o due care, 2-5 points and in theory a ban". But by the time the solicitor phoned them to ask what they were going to do me for, they embellished it to 65mph in a 30. By the time it came to court (when they knew I was pleading G, to make the whole thing cheaper) they embellished it further to 95 in a 30 with the motorbike copper almost touching my bumper all the way. I was actually doing.... maybe 40 in a 30?

On another occassion I got done for 72 in a 40, when I was doing about 40-45 but was overtaken (dual carriageway) by a total loony who saw the speed trap and turned off down a side road and they couldn't be bothered to go after him (and told me so).

These are little isolated events and probably a miniscule % of total traffic incidents handled by the police (let's face it, you do have to miff them off badly for them to go to so much trouble) but I still remember them after 25-30 years, and tell everybody about them at every opportunity :) These kinds of incidents therefore tend to give the police a bad name.

[maxdrypower]

IO you are quite clearly a menace to everyone on the road and a vile recidivist , these coppers obviously had you pegged at an early age , In my opinion they should have formed an Anti IO Squad
:}:}:}:}

[liam548]

Maxdrypower,

Absolutely, but I was more deferential and naive back then. I was being led along by a policeman. Thankfully, it didn't go to court (though I did, as requested, only to be the only one they 'forgot' to tell about the adjournment).

CG

completely wrong and goes against everything we get taught at police training school. I spent weeks learning how to take statements correctly when I joined.

Do not be led by anyone, remember it is you that you are signing for!

[maxdrypower]

To be fair though Liam therev are a shed load of older grizzled CID types who will try and steer the witness the way they want .
As for taking statements you only learn how a statement should be written when you attend court and get it ripped to bits by a cheeky barrister :}
I often heard younger chaps claiming they were good at writing statements right up till they appeared in court and found that Bruche statemnts are not real world statements , funny hehehehe

[liam548]

To be fair though Liam therev are a shed load of older grizzled CID types who will try and steer the witness the way they want .
As for taking statements you only learn how a statement should be written when you attend court and get it ripped to bits by a cheeky barrister :}
I often heard younger chaps claiming they were good at writing statements right up till they appeared in court and found that Bruche statemnts are not real world statements , funny hehehehe


very true

:)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis , how very dare you !!!
All police officers are trained in evidence acquisition , the ones who end up in CID are invariably the ones who like sitting in interview rooms collating and processing such evidence rather than actually being the ones who collect it in the first place .
What is the difference between investigating a murder and investigating a fatal car accident ??? Nil the procedures are the same . Only RTA's are investigated by Traffic officers .
Dear me Genghis Im hurt
Although dont tell anyone I was only in traffic by title I got merged froma vehicle crime unit , bazdads!!! I hate traffic too

I'm sure you're right, and Northants' inability to say where the speed limit sign I was supposed to have seen was, where they'd actually put their speed camera, whether it was in calibration, or tell me what their local guidelines were about speed camera positioning and how they'd complied with them was just a passing local glitch!

They actually were very unpleasant about it, I just kept standing my ground - by continuing to ask the same questions until they gave up and dropped it. But, whilst I like to think I'm made of reasonably stern stuff, the general manner from them did routinely scare the hell out of me, and I think that manner (rather than open honest communications) is what just persuades most people to just pay-up and shut-up.

G

[maxdrypower]

Just remember traffic cops are not human , they are BORG , Everything is black and white to them and oppressive and sarcastic are about the best two words (non swearing) to describe them