Reconstructing the Past – Memory, belief or a bit of both?

Articles

24/01/2020

In 1973, reflecting on “scattered pictures” and “misty water-coloured memories”, Barbra Streisand asked “Can it be that it was all so simple then”? The answer from Mrs. Justice Lambert in 2020 is no.

Issues relating to memory and witness evidence continue to trouble the courts. The problems are particularly acute when witnesses are giving evidence many years after the events took place. The judgment in Sanderson (by her litigation friend) v Guy’s and Thomas’ NHS Foundation [2020] EWHC 20 (QB) provides a good example of the difficulties that can arise. Although the key factual witness, an on-call consultant obstetrician, had some recollection of the events under scrutiny, her evidence was necessarily an exercise in reconstruction from what memory remained, the contemporaneous records and what the witness believed she would have done and thought from her knowledge of her practice at the time.

The timing of various events was central to the issue of liability in the case. However, the court emphasised the importance of looking at the factual evidence realistically. The events in question all took place over 17 years ago. Because of this a forensic scrutiny of the timing of events was bound to involve an element of imprecision.

There were other difficulties with regard to the contemporaneous records. Firstly, these were all written in a block after the events had taken place. Secondly, the times ascribed to key events were taken from various different clocks, none of which was synchronised. In addition, the practice that was then adopted with regard to note keeping was very different to what it is now. Proper allowance also had to be made for what were initially “high pressure” and subsequently emergency circumstances. There was an “element of unreality” to some of the questions put to the witness in an attempt to refine the timeline down still further from that which she recalled. The court held that it was now impossible to “drill down” to the exact fraction of a minute when a particular event had occurred.

The court therefore rejected all the criticisms made of the consultant obstetrician’s management. This was not a case, in Barbra Streisand’s words, in which time had “rewritten every line”.

Case details
Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division.
Judge: Lambert J.
Date of judgment: 10.01.2020

Simon Readhead Q.C. represented the Defendant NHS Trust.

Read the full case analysis here.

Latest News & Events

Lipton and Another v BA Cityflyer Limited [2024] UKSC 24: Denied Boarding, and Brexit Rules of Engagement

In a recent decision the Supreme Court gave guidance as to the interpretation of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (almost universally – but not in the Supreme Court – known as ‘the Denied Boarding Regulation’), and in doing so, set out a handy guide for practitioners on…

The Dekagram: 15th July 2024

This week we examine the perils inherent in issuing proceedings at the last minute, especially when dealing with the e-filing system implemented in order to make all of our lives easier. As always, the team’s advice is: don’t do it, it’ll end in tears. And…

Catherine Atkinson and Jake Richards successful in General Election

Congratulations to both Catherine Atkinson and Jake Richards who were elected as Members of Parliament in last week’s General Election. Catherine was elected in Derby North and Jake was elected in Rother Valley. We wish them both well in their new positions.

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)