Crown Court appearance

Ok, so returning back to the original question as a 'professional witness' thats the area you need to focus on.

A good defence barrister will try and get you out of your area of expertise and then discredit you. It's not personal it's just one of many tactics.

To help explain this drawer a circle on bit of paper about the size of a coffee mug. That circle represents your area of expertise. Draw another small circle about the size of a 10p torching the large circle. That's the subject that you may have a bit of knowledge of but are not qualified in that area.

A good defence barrister will try to draw you away from your area and get you to comment on very closely related subjects (small circle) and then pull the rug from under your feet. It's a very subtle technique and not at all obvious. Deflection.

As as 'expert witness' you may be asked to give an opinion. The Court will decide on who are experts or not. That sometimes extends to a 'professional witness'

When asked a question by the defence solicitor turn between the Judge and Jury to answer the question. Answer it and then turn back to the defence solicitor.

Another common tactic employed by the defending barrister is to demand that you either answer 'yes' or 'no'. Sometimes yes or no will not answer the question. Don't be afraid to speak out.

Turn away from the defence and say "My Lord, a yes or no answer isn't applicable , what happened was.... (Describe situation)"

Some defence barristers are actually quite theatrical, others sarcastic, some polite, another tactic is to get you to bite, provoke a reaction. Call you a liar !

Always tell the truth and don't deviate from it. If you don't understand the question or don't hear it ask again - always via the judge.

Looking smart (professional) goes without saying, by telling the truth, not fidgeting, scratching etc and looking at the judge and jury you will come across as a credible witness.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with what Blank Canvas said, except you are actually answering Counsel, addressing the Jury and talking to the Judge.
It's really, a case of your asked a question, you should then direct that answer to the Jury, and end it with the mode of address for the type of Judge. There's usually a card in the witness box with something like "Address the Judge as XXXX"
If you're being called by the Crown, then don't be surprised to see a defence expert called. And also don't be surprised if there is that the defence only mildly puts it to you you are mistaken and leaves it as that. You aren't going to change your opinions, the defence knows that and wont ask you something they don't already know your answer.
Then then wheel in their expert who will no doubt have a different opinion. That happens, so don't feel insulted.
If they don't have one then they may give you a slightly harder time, but court room dramas over do it by a very wide mark. Remember it's your expert evidence, and your it doesn't matter what the defence Counsel says he thinks (he probably doesn't believe most of what hes saying anyway), if your evidence is strong nothing is going to change that.
 
And don't forget that barristers for the crown can be equally as sly as those for the defense.
 
And don't forget that barristers for the crown can be equally as sly as those for the defense.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Some of them will happily stab you in the back.....So there are some you should never turn your back on.

One of the biggest miscarriages of justice I've seen was committed by a barrister, who didn't have a camp voice when he was presenting his case. His actions led to a someones life being ruined and not because he was acting on evidence. But thats Police Discipline boards for you, justice isn't the point. A very good friend of mine suffered the consequences of that.

STAFF EDIT : Please let the other matter drop and keep the thread on the original topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always been advised to "suit up, speak up and shut up".

Turn up smartly dressed and on time
Make sure you speak loudly and clearly
Be careful with what you say, and then don't blather on. Keep it simple and factual. If you're not sure of the question (or don't like how it's being phrased), you can speak to the magistrate and ask him/her if the question could be rephrased (or clarified).

As pointed out above, speak only what you know to be true. Don't offer opinions esp if not asked for one.

With the majority of cases you can attend as a member of the public and see what happens. Good learning experience.
 
My take - if you're called as a professional witness then you're there purely in a professional capacity and should only be asked/answer questions from the point of your expertise. It's up to the lawyers to argue about what is and isn't an acceptable question, if you know the answer when asked then answer it, if you don't then say so. If you answer honestly, you've done the best you can, leave the rest to worry about other stuff.
 
omens said:
I've always been advised to "suit up, speak up and shut up".
Turn up smartly dressed
Click to expand...

If I ever have to go to court for any reason, I will go dressed as I would normally dress. I wouldn't wear a suit just to go to court.


Steve.
 
As pointed out above, speak only what you know to be true. Don't offer opinions esp if not asked for one.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is that expert evidence is quite often opinion, but based on experience and knowledge of a subject. So for example, "Is this a good photo" would lead to an opinion answer, because a photographic expert may have a different opinion to another.
You see that difference of opinion often with medical experts. It's common in say murder cases to have a PM conducted on behalf of the Coroner and the defendant. The 2 pathologists may well come to differing conclusions, based on their opinion or interpretation of what they find.

If I ever have to go to court for any reason, I will go dressed as I would normally dress. I wouldn't wear a suit just to go to court.
Click to expand...

It's not compulsory, no, but its convention that you dress for Court as you would for church. While in the past that would be suit and tie, nowadays, less so.
 
It is important to appreciate the difference between a Professional Witness and an Expert Witness. I have been involved in the Courts for some 28 years at the Magistrates Court, the Crown Court, the County Court and in the High Court.

A Professional witness appears as a witness as to facts - usually because of have being involved at the scene of the incident although not being a party to it. They should restrict their evidence to facts and not generally be asked for opinions.

An expert witness is there because they have expertise which will help to establish either a quantum or the probability that something could have happened in a certain way. An expert witness provides opinions rather than facts. For example I have appeared at the High Court in personal injury cases where I was expected to give an opinion as to the financial quantum of earnings and pension rights suffered as a result of an untimely death or severe personal injury. Normally there would be an expert witness for both the defence and the prosecution and the guidelines of the Court expect the expert witnesses to get together to agree common ground and they have prior knowledge about what each of them will be putting forward.

In terms of how to dress for Court. Dress as you would dress in your normal business life so if you normally wear a uniform or suit wear the same thing for Court. In principle smart dress is expected of professional and expert witnesses - appearing in an FCUK T-shirt is normally reserved for the defendant but I have on occasion seen a juror who wishes to make a statement dressed in that way. The Court is in current times much more relaxed about such things than they were!
 
g7swz said:
It is important to appreciate the difference between a Professional Witness and an Expert Witness. I have been involved in the Courts for some 28 years at the Magistrates Court, the Crown Court, the County Court and in the High Court.

A Professional witness appears as a witness as to facts - usually because of have being involved at the scene of the incident although not being a party to it. They should restrict their evidence to facts and not generally be asked for opinions.

An expert witness is there because they have expertise which will help to establish either a quantum or the probability that something could have happened in a certain way. An expert witness provides opinions rather than facts. For example I have appeared at the High Court in personal injury cases where I was expected to give an opinion as to the financial quantum of earnings and pension rights suffered as a result of an untimely death or severe personal injury. Normally there would be an expert witness for both the defence and the prosecution and the guidelines of the Court expect the expert witnesses to get together to agree common ground and they have prior knowledge about what each of them will be putting forward.

In terms of how to dress for Court. Dress as you would dress in your normal business life so if you normally wear a uniform or suit wear the same thing for Court. In principle smart dress is expected of professional and expert witnesses - appearing in an FCUK T-shirt is normally reserved for the defendant but I have on occasion seen a juror who wishes to make a statement dressed in that way. The Court is in current times much more relaxed about such things than they were!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post John. Your paragraph re the Professional witness covers my situation to a "T". I sat in on a session in my local Crown Court yesterday to get a feel of how things work, quite an eye-opener to say the least.
 
Interesting isn't it :D
I've been in almost every court in the south of england, including The Old Bailey ;) many times in the witness box.
No I'm not a criminal I used to work for a firm solicitors and often attended court with them for various reasons.
It really isn't that bad (y)
 
Gremlin said:
Interesting isn't it :D
I've been in almost every court in the south of england, including The Old Bailey ;) many times in the witness box.
No I'm not a criminal I used to work for a firm solicitors and often attended court with them for various reasons.
It really isn't that bad (y)
Click to expand...

Don't worry Ingrid, if you said that you'd been in the dock of almost every court in the south of England, we might have drawn different conclusions! :)

I agree, giving evidence is straightforward. Nothing to be apprehensive about.
 
jakeblu said:
I've been an professional witness loads of times, although never in the Crown Court, but in the county court, magistrates court and the high court. Its a piece of cake, but then I used to love it, best part of my job.

I once had an awkward barrister who cross examined me for over 45 minutes on my knowledge of the children's act it was a bit like competition fencing defense and parry, all good sport.

Don't be nervous be sure of what you have to say and do not let the defense barrister take you of track. If the questions they ask are not in your remit then simply refer them to the relevant authority.
Click to expand...
I hope you did better than calling it the Children's Act...

As to the OP, fracster hit the nail on the head in post three. You are there to provide your informed opinion on a particular issue, not to freewheel across areas outside your particular expertise or knowledge. Having been involved with the examination (and not interrogation, so fear not) of many expert witnesses, I can attest to the most assured cause for their downfall is straying beyond their area of expertise. A well-delivered "I don't know" or "I couldn't comment" is significantly less dangerous, or damaging, than trying to form an opinion without knowledge. Also remember that you are not here as an accused party and, as best you can, try to reassure yourself of that fact constantly.
 
[QUOTE"Astraeus, post: 6736102, member: 15609"]Children Act, maybe?[/QUOTE]
p***y over an "s"?
Classy :LOL:
 
viv1969 said:
[QUOTE"Astraeus, post: 6736102, member: 15609"]Children Act, maybe?
Click to expand...
p***y over an "s"?
Classy [emoji38][/QUOTE]
Well yes, when the post was how someone was grilled for 45 minutes on the detail of an Act, one would presume the Act was at least referred to properly, in much the same as an expert witness who refers to custody or indeed, since 2014, residence and contact. Starting by referring incorrectly to the Act doesn't bode well.
 
Astraeus said:
p***y over an "s"?
Classy [emoji38]
Click to expand...
Well yes, when the post was how someone was grilled for 45 minutes on the detail of an Act, one would presume the Act was at least referred to properly, in much the same as an expert witness who refers to custody or indeed, since 2014, residence and contact. Starting by referring incorrectly to the Act doesn't bode well.[/QUOTE]

In an online forum. ....
Righty oh :rolleyes:
 
Youve lost me now. The particular incident was related to an antisocial behaviour order in a magistrates court and the defendants barrister was trying to undermine my evidence by claiming that the proper procedure was not followed with regard to the necessary referrals to other support agencies. He failed and the order was granted.

At first I thought you were just a bit of a pedant we all have our crosses to bear, but I'm not so sure now.

Edit Sorry @viv1969 I quoted the wrong post, that's what you get for posting on the phone in bed after 1/2 a bottle of wine
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top