uk-witness-statement-review

uk-witness-statement-review

When to Use

• A user has a draft witness statement for England and Wales civil proceedings.
• The statement needs checking against documents, chronology, pleadings, or disclosure.
• The user wants issues flagged before signing, service, exchange, or filing.
• The draft may contain argument, speculation, hearsay, unsupported recollection, or inconsistent dates.

This skill is a review workflow. It does not certify truth, settle admissibility, or replace solicitor/counsel sign-off.

Audience and Work Shape

Audience: England and Wales litigation lawyers, pupils/trainees, and paralegals reviewing witness evidence under supervision before service or filing.

Work shape: pattern-matched review with accretive judgment. The skill classifies paragraph types, flags support/rule issues, and prepares questions for the responsible lawyer/witness; it does not certify the evidence.

Legal Failure Modes

• Legal support, not legal advice: the review flags drafting, evidential, and procedural issues; it does not certify truth, admissibility, or compliance.
• Privilege/confidentiality: witness drafts, exhibits, and reviewer comments may be privileged or confidential. Use approved environments and keep outputs within the privilege group unless a responsible lawyer approves circulation.
• Accountability: the witness owns the truth of the evidence, and the responsible lawyer owns service, filing, and strategic use.

Access Modes

This skill works in three modes:

1. Live source mode - use browser, web search, MCP, API, or other configured access to retrieve public rules, orders, filings, or source documents.
2. User-supplied source mode - use the draft statement plus uploaded or pasted exhibits, pleadings, correspondence, chronology, disclosure, prior statements, rules, or orders supplied by the user.
3. No-source mode - review the statement's internal drafting issues and produce a source-request checklist, but do not mark factual assertions as supported.

If exhibits, documents, rules, or orders cannot be retrieved or supplied, mark the relevant check source_missing or verify_current_rule. Do not verify facts or procedural compliance from model memory.

How It Works

1. Confirm context

Identify:

• Court or tribunal, claim type, and procedural stage.
• Witness role: party, employee, expert-adjacent fact witness, third party, or litigant in person.
• Purpose: interim application, trial, summary judgment, costs, or pre-action evidence.
• Governing directions, page limits, exhibit rules, or court-specific order.
• Source set: pleadings, chronology, exhibits, correspondence, disclosure, and prior statements.

If the governing order or forum is unknown, flag CPR/PD points as verify_current_rule.

If the forum is a tribunal or specialist court not governed by the CPR witness statement regime, identify the applicable procedural rules and mark CPR/PD checks as not_applicable_or_verify.

2. Build a statement map

For each paragraph, classify:

• first-hand fact
• hearsay or reported fact
• belief or inference
• argument or submission
• legal conclusion
• procedural background
• exhibit reference
• needs_source

Keep paragraph numbers stable. The output should let a drafter jump straight to the problem paragraph.

3. Check source support

For each factual assertion:

• Tie it to a source document, exhibit, correspondence item, chronology entry, or witness knowledge basis.
• Quote or pinpoint the supporting material.
• Mark unsupported assertions as needs_source.
• Mark document conflicts as source_conflict.
• Preserve uncertainty: a witness can say what they recall, but the review must show where documents differ.

4. Check drafting and compliance risks

Flag:

• Argument dressed as evidence.
• Legal submissions or conclusions better left to skeleton argument.
• Speculation about another person's state of mind.
• Hearsay that needs a clear source or notice analysis.
• Collective phrases such as "we knew" without identifying who knew what.
• Dates, amounts, names, and defined terms inconsistent with documents or pleadings.
• Missing or vague exhibit references.
• Overlong narrative, irrelevant background, or duplicated chronology.
• PD 57AC trial witness statement requirements, certificate of compliance, and confirmation of compliance where applicable; otherwise mark not_applicable_or_verify.
• Statement of truth, signature, date, interpreter, translation, or exhibit formatting issues where applicable.

Do not invent procedural requirements from memory. If current CPR/PD wording matters, retrieve it or mark verify_current_rule.

Confidence Bands

• High: issue is directly supported by the statement text and supplied exhibit/source.
• Medium: issue is visible on the draft but depends on current rule, order, or witness confirmation.
• Low: source is missing, forum/rule status is unclear, or the point turns on admissibility/weight.

Escalation

Stop and route to the responsible lawyer when evidence is hearsay-critical, a source conflict affects a material fact, PD 57AC or a court order is unclear, the statement contains argument or legal conclusions that drive the case, or the user asks whether the statement is ready to sign/file.

5. Produce a review report

Recommended output:

| Paragraph | Issue | Severity | Source / Pinpoint | Rule / Source Checked | Suggested Fix | |---|---|---|---|---|

Severity values:

• critical - likely service/signing/accuracy problem.
• major - material evidential or drafting risk.
• minor - clarity, formatting, or housekeeping issue.
• verify - rule or source needs checking.

Then include:

• Key inconsistencies with documents.
• Unsupported factual assertions.
• Argument/legal-conclusion paragraphs.
• Exhibit and statement-of-truth checklist.
• Questions for the witness or solicitor.

Example

Review this draft witness statement against the documents and chronology. Flag unsupported paragraphs, argument, hearsay, date conflicts, and CPR/PD compliance issues. Do not rewrite the statement unless I ask.

For a compact output pattern, see examples/output.md. For paragraph classifications and witness-evidence review axes, see references/witness-review-playbook.md.

Limitations

• The witness, not the agent, owns the truth of the evidence.
• Current CPR, Practice Direction, court order, and tribunal rules must be checked where compliance matters.
• Privileged comments and drafts require an approved processing environment.
• This skill flags evidential risk; it does not make final admissibility rulings.