Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A ground-breaking artificial intelligence programme has been developed which is set to fulfill the role of a solicitor.
Initially, the system will be deployed to deal with immigration applications. As it learns, however, it will have the potential to revolutionise the legal system and replace expensive solicitors in a wide range of legal tasks.
The project took two years to develop and was created as a partnership between the University of Bradford and London-based immigration specialists A Y & J Solicitors. It will employ complex ‘knowledge graph’ technology and ‘deep learning’ algorithms to analyse case law and learn from active decision-making.
Users will interface with a ‘conversational agent system’ called LILA (Legal Immigration Artificial Intelligence Advice). The system uses ‘explainable artificial intelligence’ in which the decisions it makes are presented in a way that allows humans can understand. It is hoped that the system will make immigration applications simpler and quicker.
The project brief states the system could even be free up to a point - a potential gamechanger for the industry, given solicitors’ fees can run to hundreds of pounds per hour.
A Y & J Director, Yash Dubal, helped develop the system and is one of the professionals who could be directly affected by the disruption it will potentially create in the legal industry. His firm provides visa and immigration services to businesses and individuals and helps UK organisations with migrant sponsor licences. He believes the benefits for society are greater than the loss that may be incurred by wealthy lawyers.
The project brief states the system could even be free up to a point - a potential gamechanger for the industry.
He said: “This might change the entire dynamics of the law industry. It's very early days but if it’s a success in immigration law, then it could be applied to other areas. The goal is to deliver the best legal advice to everyone without having to pay £250-£300 pounds an hour. As an immigrant myself, I know how much of an obstacle that can be.”
He added: “We have to start small before we take a bigger step. It has a lot of potential. It could demonetise the entire sector and in so doing, it will reduce the need for specialised skilled lawyers and that will reduce costs."
Dr Dhaval Thakker, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science in the Faculty of Engineering & Informatics at the University of Bradford said: “The idea is to use ‘Explainable AI’ – where an application designed using AI can explain its reasoning - to assist in making immigration law applications. Law is a very traditional occupation and there has not been much technological innovation in the industry. LILA will be a decision support system, supporting rather than replacing humans."
With immigration applications expected to rise following Brexit, LILA could help with data collection, conducting risk assessments, onboarding clients and various other foundational steps in the process, Dr Thakker continued.
The LILA system, which took two years to develop, is designed to capture and analyse knowledge from solicitors, experts, statutes and case law. It will constantly be updating itself, continually monitoring decisions made by human experts and learning from them.
In addition to collecting data, it will ask questions of clients in the form of text or voice and will even be able to prepare a technical legal response. Ultimately, however, it will be lawyers who make the final decisions.
[ymal]
The project is being funded by an Innovate UK KTP grant of £170,401. The system will be offered to fee-paying clients and will take care of initial advice and the required documents, follow-ups for further clarifications, and checks. Ongoing input will enable it to learn. The responses it generates will initially be checked by solicitors before it is sent to clients.
Dr Thakker added: “We are very excited about this project, it has a lot of scope and there will be a lot of applied research which comes from it. It has the potential to save time and improve efficiency so human agents can do other work.
"If successful, we will look to scale it up or put it into other areas of law.”
The Hellenic Police Directorate of the Ministry of Citizen Protection of Greece recently announced its intention to implement what it is calling the “Smart Policing” project, which will be used to provide devices (similar to smartphones) to officers that will allow them to carry out real-time facial recognition and fingerprint identification while on duty. Under the current law, the police are required to transfer any citizens who are not able to provide identification documents when they are stopped to the nearest police station for their identity to be verified. As such, these new devices will make the identification of citizens more time efficient and less intrusive, and allow the identification to be obtained in real time, eliminating the need to transfer citizens to the nearest police station if they are unable to provide identification documents. At first glance, it would appear that the Smart Policing project would be uncontroversial.
A number of legal issues are implicated by this initiative, though. Some of the most apparent issues would seem to be those relating to potential civil rights violations, and at least one civil rights advocacy organisation, Homo Digitalis, has filed a request to the Greek Data Protection Authority (DPA) expressing concern over the legality of the project. In particular, Homo Digitalis stated in its request that “there is a strong possibility that the Greek police is violating EU laws regarding the processing of personal data” laid out in the Greek Constitution, national laws linked to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, as the cost of the project will be covered in large part by the Internal Security Fund (ISF) of the European Commission, it seems unlikely that the DPA will find that the EU is violating its own Charter of Fundamental Rights, not to mention that DPA might lack the authority to even make such a finding on its own.
The successful implementation of the Smart Policing program could help to establish a precedent for limited use of such real-time facial recognition and fingerprint identification procedures.
Likewise, since a citizen who is stopped and who cannot provide identification must currently be transferred to the nearest police station to have their identity verified, it seems unlikely that the DPA will decide that the limited and less-intrusive use of such Smart Policing devices by the police during an otherwise legitimate stop of an individual will be held to violate any laws that are not currently violated by the more intrusive and time consuming current practice of taking the individual to the nearest police station. As presently contemplated, the Smart Policing project appears to be designed to minimise the impact on civil rights by eliminating the need for citizens to be taken to a police station if they lack any means of identification when they are stopped by the police. Of course, citizens would still have the right to seek redress for any civil rights violations arising from an improper stop, as they currently do.
A bigger threat, though, would seem to be the potential for one of the Smart Policing devices to be lost, stolen or misused, which could provide malicious actors with the ability to potentially access as many as 20 different security databases belonging to international and national authorities, including the Greek Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Europol, the FBI, and Interpol. Presumably, highly secure computer access safeguards will be implemented to minimise that risk, but the effectiveness of such safeguards will depend on how well they are designed to prevent access to the databases by malicious actors for this specific use.
For example, a basic level of protection could be provided by requiring a user of the Smart Policing device to be authenticated by multiple authentication mechanisms before granting them access, but providing only that basic level of protection would almost guarantee that a malicious actor will eventually be able to obtain access to the security databases. In addition to such basic protection, enhanced system-level protection should also be implemented that is specifically designed to prevent such malicious actors from obtaining data from those security databases in the event that they are able to bypass the access protection. For example, if the Smart Policing devices are only to be used for persons who are stopped as part of a typical police matter, such as a traffic stop or if the person matches the description of a suspect, then it would not be necessary to perform more than one such identification every minute, or perhaps more than a dozen every 10 minutes. In this case, the systems that provide access to the various databases could be limited in the ability to perform large numbers of database access transactions, such as to no more than one a minute or a dozen every 10 minutes.
Alternatively, if a police officer ordinarily only performs a small number of such identifications a day, such as 20, then systems could be implemented that detect unusual use patterns (e.g. greater than 20 a day, or greater than one a minute or a dozen every 10 minutes). Those systems could report the unusual use patterns to a supervisor, in addition to GPS or other location information, to allow the usage to be immediately investigated even if the Smart Policing device has not been reported stolen or missing, to prevent the ability of malicious actors to obtain and access a Smart Policing device before the loss of the device can be detected, and also to help apprehend such malicious actors.
The successful implementation of the Smart Policing program could help to establish a precedent for limited use of such real-time facial recognition and fingerprint identification procedures. For example, real-time facial recognition and fingerprint identification could be used to improve the security of voting, to reduce the risk of fraud in the distribution of government financial assistance or medical care, and for any other activity where the government must interact with individual citizens. If citizens are exposed to such technology in increments, then they might be more willing to allow it to be used than if it is suddenly installed at every government facility and on every street corner.
People could also be given the opportunity to approve the use of visual identification when they are getting their driver’s licence, to be used in place of having to carry a form of identification around and for other specifically enumerated purposes.
One way to expand the use of Smart Policing and related applications over the next decade would thus be to stage the implementation of real-time identification systems in a predetermined manner. Authorisation could also be requested from people when it is used to allow the subsequent use of real-time identification, such as in situations where individual authorisation cannot be obtained (e.g. when scanning a crowd for a criminal suspect). For example, when a person is stopped and does not have identification available, they could be asked to authorise the use of real-time identification using image data and other biometric data both at that time and in the future. If the person refuses, they would need to be taken to the nearest police station to have their identity authenticated, but most people would likely not object if authorisation would eliminate the need for more intrusive measures. People could alternatively be asked to authorise the use of the image data that is obtained in such real-time identification for specific cases, such as when the police are looking for someone who has been recorded committing a violent crime on video. Many people would have no objection to such use if it would help to find suspects for such violent crimes. People could also be given the opportunity to approve the use of visual identification when they are getting their driver’s licence, to be used in place of having to carry a form of identification around and for other specifically enumerated purposes.
In conclusion, successful implementation of real-time facial recognition, fingerprint and other biometric identification systems will likely depend on how well the authorities prevent such systems from being abused by malicious actors, and whether such systems are perceived as providing a service as opposed to a threat. The incremental expansion of the use of these systems in conjunction with allowing people to opt-in to their use in exchange for easier and faster identification at places where identification is currently required could help to persuade the public that these systems are beneficial. On the other hand, well-publicised failures, abuses or security breaches could result in a much longer road to the successful implementation of such identification systems.
By Chris Rourk, Partner at Jackson Walker, Member of Globalaw
Linklaters has become the first magic circle firm to adopt a “black hair code” aimed at protecting the rights of staff with Afro hairstyles in the office.
Developed by the Halo Collective, the “Halo Code” champions the rights of individuals to wear Afro hairstyles in the workplace without fear of being penalised. It seeks for organisations to acknowledge Afro-textured hair as a part of black employees’ culture and identity.
The code asks organisations adopting it to adhere to the statement: “We are a community built on an ethos of equality and respect where hair texture and style have no bearing on an employee's ability to succeed.”
In a statement, Linklaters said that it “explicitly protects (beyond statutory protections) its Black colleagues who come to work with natural hair and protective hairstyles and is actively working to change long-held perceptions of Black hair.”
The firm’s move to embed the Halo Code in its Dress Code policy follows the launch of its race action plan last October, an initiative to increase racial diversity at the company. Targets of the plan include establishing a black diversity council to hold the firm to account on its progress towards fulfilling its commitments and ensuring that 35% of its UK trainees each year come from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Other firms have also been taking concrete steps towards improving racial diversity in their organisations. Fellow magic circle firm Freshfields Brockhaus Deringer announced plans earlier this month to double its number of black associates by 2026.
[ymal]
Organisations that have adopted the Halo Code itself include Fladgate and Spire Barristers, global consumer goods company Unilever and retail companies M&S and New Lok.
In actual fact, however, the rate of companies entering formal insolvency processes since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly lower when compared to the same period last year. So, what is the story behind these figures?
Government support for businesses
One major factor is the level of government support given to companies during this time. A range of fiscal stimulus packages have been offered to UK companies, ranging from government-backed loans, tax deferral schemes, through to the extremely popular Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – more commonly known as the furlough scheme. These initiatives have given companies access to vital new funds while also lessening financial overheads as trade continues to be interrupted.
The other contributing factor to the low level of insolvencies is a moratorium on Winding Up Petitions, which was brought in as an emergency measure as part of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act.
If a company continues to refuse – or is simply unable – to pay the money owed, the creditor company can petition the courts to wind up the indebted company in the belief that they are insolvent.
Understanding the moratorium on Winding Up Petitions
This prevented creditors not only from petitioning the courts to wind up an indebted company, but it also halted existing winding up action against a company based on statutory demands which were served after 1 March 2020.
As a consequence, this has meant many companies which would have otherwise found themselves facing compulsory liquidation have been given a reprieve.
However, this stay of execution is merely temporary. While the expiration date of this emergency legislation was extended from its original 31 December 2020 end date, the moratorium on WUPs being heard at court is now scheduled to expire on 31 March 2021.
What is a Winding Up Petition and what does this mean for a company that receives one?
A Winding Up Petition (WUP) represents one of the final actions a creditor can take against a debtor company, typically once all other collection methods have been exhausted. If a company continues to refuse – or is simply unable – to pay the money owed, the creditor company can petition the courts to wind up the indebted company in the belief that they are insolvent.
If the debtor company is not able to successfully defend the WUP – either by paying the amount owed, entering into a mutually-agreeable repayment plan, or challenging the legitimacy of the debt – the WUP will be followed by a Winding Up Order which will quickly lead to the company being forced into compulsory liquidation.
An Official Receiver will be appointed by the courts, who will begin the process of winding up the company, tying up its outstanding affairs, dismissing staff, before ensuring its name is removed from the register held at Companies House. At this point, the company will be closed and it will cease to exist as a legal entity.
What happens after the moratorium on WUPs end?
Following the expiration of the temporary moratorium on Winding Up Petitions on 31st March 2021, creditors will once again be able to present WUPs to indebted companies, and the courts will begin to work their way through the backlog of cases.
It is expected that the number of companies entering liquidation will increase as court-ordered closures recommence. There is expected to be a level of pent-up demand from creditors who have been unable to take action against delinquent payers for the last 12 months, keen to recover the money they are owed.
While current insolvency levels remain low, many fear this could be the calm before the storm.
Keith Tully is a partner at Real Business Rescue with more than 25 years’ experience in advising directors and shareholders on all aspects of business insolvency, rescue, recovery, and turnaround.
Rahn+Bodmer, the oldest private bank in Zurich, will pay $22 million to settle US criminal charges that it helped American taxpayers to defraud the International Revenue Service (IRS) by hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore bank accounts.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Thursday that the bank had entered a three-year deferred prosecution agreement after being accused of conspiring to help clients file false tax returns and evade US taxes, and had admitted wrongdoing that included helping clients to defraud the IRS.
The bank will cooperate with the DOJ’s crackdown on offshore tax evasion, acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M Goldberg said.
“With the April 15 tax filing date fast approaching, there is a clear message for those intending not to pay their fair share – nothing remains hidden forever,” Goldberg continued.
Rahn-Bodmer admitted to having held undeclared accounts on behalf of roughly 340 US taxpayers who, between 2004 and 2012, evaded about $16.4 million in US taxes. It also allegedly opened accounts under pseudonyms or the names of “sham” foundations in Panama and Lichtenstein, and for clients who were exiting other Swiss banks such as UBS Group AG.
The bank agreed to pay a $7.4 million fine, make $4.9 million of restitution, and forfeit $9.7 million of fees.
[ymal]
“Today’s admission and agreement provide a clear path to recovery of funds owed to the U.S. government, and sends a strong signal that offshore accounts are not beyond the reach of special agents with IRS CI,” said IRS-CI Chief James C Lee.
Rahn+Bodmer was founded in Zurich in 1750 and last year had 13.6 billion Swiss francs – the equivalent of $14.71 billion USD – of client assets under management.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Karen Mason, co-founder of Newmanor Law, on how Heads of Terms will be come essential as businesses look to reacquire office space.
Whilst the Government has detailed its roadmap out of lockdown, as yet there has been no guidance issued for office workers returning to their workplaces. Not only will the return to a normal office environment depend on each business, but on four tests that must be satisfied.
The tests include the success of the vaccine deployment programme and evidence to show the vaccines are effective in reducing hospitalisations. Also, it will be essential to keep infection rates below the level that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS and manage variants of concern.
This all points to the remaining working-remotely or furloughed staff returning to workplaces no sooner than 17 May, which gives occupiers time to consider renegotiating their lease terms or trying to agree a new lease to redefine their situation.
Despite the call from some like Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, who believes all workers will return to the office full time, many other businesses have accepted that remote working will form part of the working week, which will lead them to question their utilisation of space. Some industry commentators believe now is the right time to downsize and change the office for ever, using a hot-desk approach with team members in the office on different days, whilst others looking to space their people apart, may ironically need bigger offices or more locations.
Critical for businesses in the post-COVID world will be the need to secure a good long-term deal, with the different needs of each business requiring comprehensive Heads of Terms to tie down what is being agreed, whilst outlining the timetable and obligations of the parties during the negotiations.
Critical for businesses in the post-COVID world will be the need to secure a good long-term deal.
Heads of Terms provide a written record of the main terms of a deal, but typically they are resolved before involving solicitors, which can cause problems and delays later. When well-drafted they will provide the framework for the deal and cover how it should be executed. They will also serve later as a checklist that all agreed terms have been included in the documentation.
If Heads of Terms are drafted without advice from an experienced real estate lawyer at the outset there is the very real possibility that a long list of questions will be raised when the solicitors do get involved, which will only delay matters. The process of agreeing detailed Heads of Terms is also a very good test of the parties' seriousness in completing the transaction and can be a good indication of how each party will do business.
The Heads of Terms will typically include points such as the price of the deal, the identities of the parties involved, the basic purpose of the contract, the terms of the contract or transaction, confidentiality agreements and any protection for the parties should the transaction not proceed.
The major reason for seeking expert advice at the outset is to ensure the Heads of Terms do not become legally binding by accident, since detailed provisions will be included in the contract documentation.
Using the phrase ‘subject to contract’ will help, but in many cases, the actions of the parties after the Heads of Terms have been drafted, will have as much impact on whether the provisions are deemed legally binding as the actual wording of the provisions included. For example, should parties start to deliver the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms before a legally binding contract has been agreed, the very act of doing so may be deemed an indication that these obligations are accepted as being legally binding.
For a lease agreement, these provisions might include:
The list is an extensive one, but the more detail included at the start the shorter the negotiations should be. One tip to try and help stop further negotiations becoming protracted is to add a target completion date into the Heads of Terms.
[ymal]
It is vital to ensure that any suggested changes in the Heads of Terms are reflected in the documentation itself, and the key to avoiding provisions accidentally slipping into legally binding status is to move to drawing up final contracts as quickly as possible.
Heads of Terms will become increasingly important in commercial property deals, as they provide the framework for efficient and successful deal execution. Once the Heads of Terms have been agreed they will act as a guide and a benchmark for measuring progress.
It is important to understand the benefits of engaging specialist legal advisers at the outset, who recognise Heads of Terms are not intended to lay traps for the unwary but are all about preparing for a quick efficient deal execution, which should satisfy everyone concerned in the negotiations.
The CEO of Australia’s largest law firm has departed by “mutual agreement” following a firestorm over an internal email expressing disappointment over the firm’s decision to accept Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter as a client.
Annette Kimmitt resigned as head of MinterEllison on Wednesday, a week after sending an email to staff saying she felt “hurt” to learn that senior partner Peter Bartlett – who was not explicitly named in the message – was advising Porter over a rape allegation. The email was later leaked to news media.
“The acceptance of this matter did not go through the firm’s due consultation or approval processes,” Kimmitt wrote. “Had it done so we would have considered the matter through the lens of our purpose and our values.”
“The nature of this matter is clearly causing hurt to some of you, and it has certainly triggered hurt for me. I know that for many it may be a tough day, and I want to apologise for the pain you may be experiencing.”
Kimmitt’s email drew criticism as it emerged that Porter had a relationship with a firm predating the publication of the rape accusation by four months and that, as the most senior partner at the firm, Bartlett may not have been required to seek approval before giving advice to Porter.
In an email sent to staff at 10:00 PM this Wednesday, MinterEllison chairman David O’Brien said Kimmitt’s immediate departure had been “mutually agreed”.
[ymal]
"We have thanked Annette for her years of service and dedication and wished her well for the future," O’Brien wrote.
Kimmitt was appointed CEO in July 2018, and by the time of her departure was halfway through a five-year contract.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Hina Belitz, specialist employment lawyer at Excello Law, on exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling means for employment law.
The word landmark can sometimes be overstated to describe judgments. But in one of the most significant employment cases for decades, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment against Uber certainly justifies that epithet.
Six justices of the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision which dismissed Uber’s appeal. Instead, the court backed an October 2016 employment tribunal ruling in favour of 25 drivers who argued that they were not self-employed because Uber controlled much of their work by allocating their customers and dictating their fares.
In dismissing Uber’s argument that its drivers were independent contractors who worked under contracts made with customers and not for Uber, Lord Justice Leggett said:
“Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill”.
Unlike the self-employed, workers are entitled, amongst other rights, to receive a minimum hourly wage and paid annual leave. The judgment upheld the tribunal’s decision that Uber drivers should be classed as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays – in accordance with the Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Working Time Regulations 1998.
This is manifestly an historic decision, not only for Uber drivers in the UK but also for many other workers in the domestic gig economy. Uber now faces a potentially enormous compensation payout to tens of thousands of its drivers while millions of workers in the wider gig economy may benefit from better terms as a result.
This is manifestly an historic decision, not only for Uber drivers in the UK but also for many other workers in the domestic gig economy.
Uber had argued that because its drivers are independent self-employed “partners”, they are therefore not entitled to the basic rights enjoyed by workers, which include a legally enforceable minimum wage and other statutory benefits. But the judges concluded that any attempt to draft artificial contracts that were intended to circumvent basic statutory employment protections were void and unenforceable.
The Uber judgment validates the role of the employment tribunal whose conclusion was agreed by the Supreme Court. Traditionally, such tribunals have had difficulty in deciding on the thorny issue of employment status - caused by the mixture of ‘markers’ that point to one status or another, and further complicated by the creation of the hybrid worker status, often referred to as ‘Self-Employed Plus’, which falls between self-employed and employee status.
The factors used to determine true status include how much control a person has in the working arrangement and the ability to improve their financial standing through entrepreneurial skill - something which Lord Leggatt aptly pointed out.
Employers everywhere will pay great attention to this judgment. Given the latent liabilities and costs that every employer might otherwise face, the ruling will undoubtedly result in a sea-change in how they deal with the classification and management of their staff.
[ymal]
In terms of whom they employ as workers, the choices open to gig economy companies are now clear, as are the implications of trying to create arrangements for such staff to avoid the ‘workers’ classification. The Uber decision has shown that the courts will not hesitate to look at the reality of working arrangements (as opposed to any labels attached to them) in deciding if an individual is a worker rather than being self-employed. Longstanding legal ambiguity on the point has been eliminated.
Global law firm Hogan Lovells is opening a branch in Dublin, the firm announced on Tuesday.
The office will be the firm’s 17th to open in Europe and will initially focus on financial regulatory and antitrust work. A number of the firm’s London-based lawyers, who specialise in these practice areas, will relocate to the Dublin office.
“Putting clients at the centre of everything we do is a strategic priority for the firm, and having a presence in Dublin is about doing just that,” said Christopher Hutton, Hogan Lovells’ new Dublin office managing partner, in a statement. “Hogan Lovells opening an office there is welcomed by our existing clients, and also presents new opportunities. I am excited to head up the firm’s new offering in Ireland.”
The firm has not ruled out the possibility of offering training contracts or the opportunity for trainees to be seconded to its new Dublin office.
Hogan Lovells is the latest firm to open an office in Dublin following Brexit. Ashurst launched in the Irish capital earlier this month, while Dentons did so last September.
Prior to Brexit, international firms that maintained major offices in London would serve Irish clients from the UK. Circumstances changed last November when the Law Society of Ireland ruled that English- and Welsh-qualified solicitors who had previously gained admission to the Irish roll would be required to have a physical base in Ireland to maintain their EU practice rights there.
[ymal]
Aside from the aforementioned firms, Dechert, DLA Piper, Fieldfisher and Pinsent Masons have all opened offices in Dublin following the Brexit referendum. It is likely that other international firms will soon do the same to continue to practice in Europe.
Being a witness can be nerve-wracking. There’s already too much stress and trauma after witnessing or being the subject of a crime. To add to that, the lengthy court proceeding can take a toll on anyone. The impending examination won’t be easy—even if you’re on the side of truth.
In the course of a trial, cross-examination will be scheduled to allow the opposing counsel to test the reliability and consistency of a witness’ statements. During cross-examination, a witness will be asked to retell facts, events, and remember details that are relevant to the case. The legal counsel of the opposing party will interrogate and ask clarificatory questions from the witness. This seems easy in theory, but the reality is different.
Since there is a considerable amount of time in-between the happening of the incident (or crime) and the trial itself, a witness may have difficulty remembering all the exact details of the event. A legal counsel may also ask leading questions to try to confuse the witness. And if a witness is unprepared to handle pressure, his or her statements might end up being detrimental to the case.
This is where witness familiarisation comes in. Witness familiarisation is a kind of training that’s given to witnesses or persons who will testify in court hearings. Its primary goal is to prepare witnesses to avoid poor performance during court proceedings. It’s a crucial part of litigation because the quality and reliability of a witness’s testimony can make or break the outcome of a case.
This training isn’t only applicable to factual witnesses or individuals who witnessed the crimes; it can benefit expert witnesses too. These include psychologists, doctors, and other medical experts who can help shed light on forensic evidence and medical records that were gathered in a case.
The primary goal of witness familiarisation is to prepare witnesses to avoid poor performance during court proceedings.
The strength of evidence is a crucial element to win court battles. While evidence may consist of objects and documents, it is also common to call a witness who can narrate facts or tell statements that can help the jury envision what really happened in the case.
Even though a witness is truthful and in good faith, he or she may still get nervous and lost during the proceedings. This can result in consequences that negatively impact a case. This is particularly true when experienced lawyers start raising doubts about their testimonies. Some lawyers employ tactics that would infuse confusion or panic to a witness, and make them succumb to pressure that will later affect their statements.
With training from a witness familiarisation program, both factual and expert witnesses can answer and explain their testimony to the legal counsel and the court more confidently. Depending on the provider, this training is usually divided into two parts:
[ymal]
The trainers are usually composed of barristers and experienced professors in the legal profession. They are required to follow a strict set of rules to guarantee that the program doesn’t violate legal procedures and ethics.
Witness familiarisation is lawful because its main goal is to help witnesses be informed of the processes of a court proceeding or a criminal trial. By showing and exposing witnesses to how judicial proceedings work, the witness can participate more confidently and would be more competent in giving his or her testimony.
However, ethical issues could arise in the course of the training. That’s why there are strict requirements and limitations for trainers and the people involved in the course. For example, persons who are handling the training must not be personally involved with an ongoing case that a witness is being called to.
