 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible with a view to countering the
tendency to overload the evidence and to invest disproportionate effort and
expenditure in the preparation of witness statements. This attracted objections from
many consultees as being contrary to fundamental common law principles, as being
unworkable and as undesirably requiring the judge to descend into the arena. The
general view was that the court ought instead to use its case management powers and
costs sanctions to deter prolixity rather than attempt to exclude evidence.
In the context of other reforms which have been proposed, the Working Party agrees
that such a case management approach is preferable. It is also noted that a more
stringent attitude towards relevance has been adopted in some authorities so that
undue prolixity may render reiterations of evidence irrelevant and subject to exclusion
on that ground.
To discourage over-worked witness statements, the Working Party recommends
adopting a rule giving the court discretion to permit witnesses to go beyond the
contents of their witness statements if there is good reason for doing so and, if
necessary, allowing them to do so subject to terms.
|
 |
|