Hi folks,
Is there a specific CD that talks about a medical professional acting in the role of 'advocate'? Ie in giving lesser weight to their evidence because they are acting in this capacity?
Just wondering, because a DM has used this example, but can't find a specific decision that cites it.
cheers,
jo.

Basic principle: someone coming with an appellant to a Tribunal will normally fall into one of various categories:

moral support;
witness;
advocate; or
interpreter.

The last is certainly inconsistent with any of the others: an interpreter should always be fully independent. I can't see why an advocate who knows the appellant cannot give direct evidence of matters within their personal knowledge, eg "I have seen her walking and she is incredibly slow and wobbly."

In fact the Benchbook (available somewhere on this site - toolkit?) makes exactly this point under the heading of witnesses, and comments "the fact that the evidence comes from a representative does not give it any special status". On the whole though Tribunals seem to like to get the evidence from the appellant if capable of giving it.

I'd have thought any Tribunal would be so dazzled by the mere fact that a GP thought this case sufficiently important that he took the time to come along, that the mere presence of the GP would give the case a lot of weight! I've only known it happen once that that was an Army doctor (and the army does look after its own).

I certainly can't see why it should lessen the cogency of the evidence and am not aware of any commissioners' decision to the contrary.

Sorry about the brief response but I'm just about to head out to appeals.

Have a look at CDLA/2462/03, CDLA/1490/06 and CDLA/1138/03 on the OSSC website. They all concern reps giving evidence.

David

I don't think there is any decision referring this, but I see this sort of comment quite often in DM submissions. It is intended as a way of discrediting the evidence of a GP that contradicts the EMO report. There certainly are decisions referring to the GP as a professional who is under no obligation to write letters in support, or complete questionnaires from reps. If the DM is seeking to discredit the view of the Gp I would ask to see any specific evidence they may have to support their implied assertion that the GP is not being objective and professional in the opinion offered.

Personally, I tend to ignore that sort of comment from DMs (when sitting on a tribunal) and assess the evidence as it is.

Simon Ennals

NB no longer of French & Co