A general point on which thoughts and comments welcomed!


Because I am generally not able to represent at tribunals, on a handful of occassions, usually in factually difficult cases for e.g. LTAHW cases that involve a long and complex chronology, I have taken a witness statement from the client whcih the client then signs and we submit as evidence in advance of the hearing. Although not strictly necessary, the statement is signed off under a CPR style statement of truth.

The main purpose of this approach has been to ensure that in complex cases the client does not forget to mention important facts and the tribunal is put on notice about the clients evidence and is thus forced into giving detailed reasons if it decidides against the client on factual points.

I had a case recently where this backfired..client went off merrily to the hearing and gave oral evidence that was not consistant with the written statement, hence the tribunal found the client to be an unreliable witness and, predictably, the appeal failed. In that particualr case the client changed his version of events and so I'm afaraid it was rather on his head but it did highlight the dangers of usings written statements.

Does anyone else use written statements and if so what are your experiences at tribunals?

I have seen first hand incidents where clmts written appeals / statements said one thing and the verbal evidence did not exactly tally. In those cases I attended (in whatever capacity), the Tribunal found for the LA every time - no exceptions.

From the LA perspective, I have relied on written statements for LA officers when compiling submissions. As yet, this has never caused a problem - Chair's have attached whatever weight they see as being appropriate to the statement(s).

Normally, the written statement tends to be used in situations where it would be pretty pointless calling an LA officer in person and therefore a brief statement has been submitted simply confirming that interviews / details of visits, statements in the LA's submission are correctly attributed and all are an accurate reflection based on recollection(s) and records etc.

Occasionally, the LA officer has in any case been called - especially when the clmt (or rep) has cast, how shall I put it, "aspersions" on the character of the officer concerned (wonder how many reps realise the risk they, or their clients, run in terms of defamation....even those who are "professional" reps...). To date, in my experience, nothing has turned on the written statement / attending officer situation. As a purely personal observation, I have also found this to be true in other legal proceedings in which I have been involved in one capacity or another (not benefits related).

Two rules really: 1) Don't lie in the first place; 2) Make sure you know your own statement inside out. 3) (er, did I say " two rules"? ) never ever ever personalise statements beyond stating the facts and attributing RELEVANT comment.

As a lawyer, the above bit is probably a bit insulting - sorry ! But hopefully it could be useful to one or two others.

Regards

I have to say I don't do it Kevin's way at TAS, (though Kevin is a person I respect, and he knows his stuff perhaps better than I)... and the Two rules are most certainly on the money...

In LTAHAW cases, I always bring along the LA Investigation Officer if they are willing (or instructed by their manager), to attend. This means the Tribunal can ask questions, and verify the validity of what was seen/observed or later discussed in the IUC.

For the WRO side, I have however seen what happens when written statements are not provided to the Tribunal. This is an account of what happened at a Cardiff Tribunal in 2001 (my first LTAHAW case) when I was a PO for a Welsh LA...

The Chair was a middle aged woman. The Claimant had described his wife, with whom it was thought he was living, as 'my cleaner' when the LA investigations staff called:

Chair; "Why did you refer to your wife as your cleaner when you were asked who she was?".

Claimant; "Well you have got to keep them in their place haven’t you?".

Chair; (shocked and aghast), "I don't know what you mean".

Claimant; "well you know, you can't let them think that they are better than you, so you have to put them down to let them know".

The claimant lost his appeal, and had a signed statement been available to him, I think have concentrated his mind to the issues being discussed, rather than his views on equality in marriage.

Wish I could have been a fly on the wall at that one!!!!