先生证人证言

1、证人证言1. 证人证言的缺陷与近期批评12. 对证人证言的再度.93. 证人证言的拟定133.1 做法之一143.2 做法之二163.3 证人证言拟定的结论194. 证人证言的格式与内容205. 律师拟定证人证言的操守256. 交换证人证言的时间277. 证人证言之后的修改298. 帮助证人或潜在证人回忆（Memory Refreshing）309. 交叉盘问/反盘问不受证人证言内容局限331. 证人证言的缺陷与近期批评在 1986 年后，证人证言（Witness Statement）才通过高院规则（Rulesof the Supreme Court 或简称 RSC）之 Order 38，ru

2、le 2A.3 被引入英国民事诉讼程序，作为替代口头的主证据（Oral Evidence-in-Chief）。这种做法首先出现在英国的商业（Commercial Court），但很快就被延伸到其他与其他普通法或地区的（特区）。而国际仲裁也很快作出同样的改变，接受这种做法。这在当时被视为是一个很好的民事程序的，正如在当时的白皮书（White Book）说：“an outstanding and far-reaching change in the machineryof civil justice.”同时，一个的目的包括节省开庭时间与费方开庭前把牌面摊在桌上（Cards on the table

3、）的理念，与消灭因为不预先知道或猜测对方证人的与主证据而在开理时被突击（ambush）与感到惊讶（surprise），进而令变得与减低开庭前最后机会和解的可能性等。但在操作了 30 年后，近年来的实践做法受到不少批评。早在 Woolf 勋爵 1996年的Access to Justice报告中，就已经批评证人证言变成了一份由律师拟定的法律文件，与让不律的事实证人以文书形式提交想要与需要院作出的证据的本意越去越远。很难相信如果该证人在出庭以口头作出主证据时，在没有引导性问题（leading questions）协助的情况下，仍会以口头说出与相同的内容。人证言可节录部份批评如下：（一）在 1996

4、 年的Access to Justice报告中，Woolf 勋爵说：“witness statements have ceased to be the authentic account of the lay witness; instead they have become an elaborate, costly branch of legal drafting.”（二）在 Berezovsky v. Abramovich (2012) EWHC 2463 (Comm)先例，Gloster 官说：“（指在该先例的情况）led to some scepticism on the court&

5、#39;s as to whether the lengthy witness statement reflected more the industrious work productof the lawyers, than the actual evidence of the witnesses.”（三）接下去在 Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings Inc (2013) EWHC 3463(Comm)先例，Cooke官说证人证言现在变成是律师根据披露了的文件狡黠地塑造，再也不是证人证言本应所起的作用（“cunningly crafted to pu

6、t the caseby reference to the documents that have been disclosed, and that's not what witnessstatements are for”）。（四）在 Gestmin SGPS SA v. Credit Suisse (2013) EWHC 3560 (Comm)先例，官说证人证言免不了会在反复多次重复后才会正式交出给。这Leggatt证言也通常是由律师来草拟，而他/她是完全知道哪一些事实是重要或不重要，轻重怎样掌握。这一来，Leggatt官认为证人证言最后只是有关证人对争议事实的回忆，不论这回忆的事

7、实是真或是假（“will ultimately become the record of a witness' memory whether in fact it is true or false”）。官也谈及自然人（Natural）记忆（memory）的可靠性，Leggatt这也在之后 GH v. The Catholic Child Welfare Society (2016) EWHC 337 (QB) 先例被认同。近期对记忆的研究显示两种相假设是错误的。第一种是以为对一件事件的回顾是感觉越强烈与越清楚，这一个回忆是正确的可能性就越大。第二种是两位对立的证人，更有自信的一位更有可

8、能回忆是正确：“Two common (and related) errors are to suppose: (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2)that the more confident anotherrecollection is to be accurate.”is in their recollection, the more like

9、ly their官指出近期对这方面的研究显示了记忆是与可塑的，也经Leggatt常会在自然人追溯回忆时被重写：“. psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved ”此外当一个自然人因为时间的流逝对于一件事的记忆已经变得很弱时，被显示了新的信息或建议，记忆也特别容易预与改变：“. memory is particularlyvulnerable to interference

10、and alteration when ais presented with newinformation or suggestions about an event in circumstances where his or her memoryof it is already weak due to the passage of time.”Neuberger 勋爵在 2017 年也：“. most witnesses who are not telling thetruth are not actually lying, but have misremembered or have pe

11、rsuaded themselvesof the truth of what they are saying .”而证人证言则令这方面变得更糟。最后，Leggatt官人证据的可靠性还有以下因素：（1）事实证人通常与有关有利系。（2）证人证言通常是律师拟定，并在证人被提供以往的文件协助回忆，以及参阅了陈述（Statements of Case）并了解双方方的立场后才定稿。（3）证人在开理前准备接受盘问阶段就熟读了已交出与交换的证人证言。这一来，无论证人证言是对是错（或有对有错），证人更加深信其内容就是的记忆。可以说，证人证言拟定的过程是可以塑造（reconstruct）并可能扭曲了证人的回忆。（

12、五）在 Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander v. UBS AG (2014) EWHC 2450 (Comm)先例，Andrew Smith官说：“It's become a problem with litigation in this court,that we aup long witness statements, often with significant passages thatare inadmissible, and then go away to read page after page of it and try and dig

13、est itand deal with it when we are writing our judgment, and it's not the right way to.”（六）在 Renaissance Capital v. African Minerals Limited (2014) EWHC 2004(Comm) 先例， Field官说 ：“ This trend to produce over-lengthy andargumentative witness statements must stop. It is wasteful of costs and the cou

14、rt'svaluable time.”官也说到在的将来，商业可能会限定证人证言的页数与Field要求方院确认有完全遵守证人证言的规则：“The profession should not besurprised if in the near future the Commercial Court Guide is amended so as to: (i)limit the length of witness statements, requiring the leave of the court to exceed the limit; and (ii) require the pa

15、rties to confirm in a report to the court post CMC that thewitness statement rules have been complied with.”（七）在 Estera Trust (Jersey)and another v. Singh and others (2018) EWHC1715 (Ch)先例，认为花了大量时间与金钱的证人证言其实没有用，没有什么证据价值（evidential value），反而欠缺证人真正 were "notably lacking from the witness statement

16、s"）。true voice of the witnesses澳大利亚也有不少批评人证言问题的这方面先例，可节录部份如下：（八）澳大利亚最高院在 Toll (FGCT) Ptyv. Alphapharm Pty CLR165; (2004) HCA52 先例说：(2004) 219“ Written statements of witnesses, no doubt prepared by lawyers, were received as evidence in chief. Those statements contained a deal of inadmissible evi

17、dence, often in written form and prepared in advance of the hearing is to be strongly discouraged. It tends to distract attention from the real issues, give rise to pointless cross-examination and cause problems on appeal where is may be difficult to know the extent to which the inadmissible materia

18、l influenced the judgment in the first instance.”（加黑部分是笔者的强调）（九）在 Concrete Ptyv. Parramatta Design & Developments Pty(2006)HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577 先例，Callinan官说：“This system has its disadvantages and dangers. On the one hand, the trial judge will be well educated in many of the details of the

19、 case on each side by the time that the hearing starts. But on the other hand, it may sometimes difficult for the trial judge, apparently fully conversant with the facts and issues, not to have formed some provisional view at least of the outcome of the case. The justifications for the provision of

20、written statements in advance of trial have been thought to be the avoidance of surprise and the shortening of hearing time. These advantages will often be more illusory than real. The provision of written statements by one side willafford to the other an opportuto rehearse in some detail his or her

21、 response. It isalso impossible to avoid the suspicion that statements on all sides are frequently theproduct of much refinement and polishing in the offices and chambers of the lawyers representing the parties. Rather than of the unassisted recollection and expression of them and their witnesses. T

22、his goes some way to explaining the quite stilted and artificial language in which some of the evidence is expressed in writing from time to time, as it was here. Viva voce evidence retains a spontaneity and genuineness often lacking in prepared written material. It is also open to question whether

23、written statements in advance do truly save time and expense, even of the trial itself. Instead of hearing and analyzing the evidence in chief as it is given, the trial judge has to read it in advance, and then has the task of listening to the cross-examination on it, and rather, of attempting to in

24、tegrate the writtenstatements, any additional evidence given orally in chief, and the evidence given incross-examination.”（加黑部分是笔者的强调）综合以上的部分案例中的严厉批评，可以看到人证言的缺陷，可以说是原来引进证人证言以替代口头的主证据/主询问基本性改变到的。这些缺陷可简单介绍如下：制度时预计不（一） 现在，在精明的律师协助下准备与拟定的证人证言，实际是无法替代口头的主证据。因为在这个私下与的过，不要说律师免不了向证人提出诱导性问题，甚至可能会做出更不符合专业操守的事

25、情。加上证人证言这份文件会在多次修改（不代表是改为更接近或证人原来讲的话）与润色后才会交出/交换，难以相信该证人如果是以口头作出主证据也是与文件同样的内容。这令（或仲裁庭）在该证人接受交叉盘问/反盘问后，看到他/她在回答很简单的问题是犹豫不决，或显露了对证人证言所讲的内容不熟悉或有误解，甚至坦率承认是由代表律师“包办”而只是在“大致认同”的情况下签字等等，是很难相信与以来以找出寻找争议事实的。（二） 这些年来对自然人的记忆的科学研究显示了对自然人的记忆有不少误解或错觉。这并非是证人刻意撒谎的情况，这种情况在一般的国际商业争议发生通常的不多，因为一旦被拆穿会有后果严重。一般国际商业争议的证人，即

26、使是与的结果有密切的利系，例如关键证人是方公司的雇员或高管，通常仍不够动力/诱因（motive）院说谎。只有相对少数是证人有很大与很动力/诱因，例如他/她是规模较小型的公司，公司，败诉会倾家荡产与身败名裂。如果不是一般的国际商业争议，如涉及与不诚实（例如航运频频发生的破坏船舶以骗取保险费的，像近期著名的 Suez Fortune Investments& Piraeus Bank AE v. Talbot Underwriting&others 2019 EWHC 2599 Comm先例）的，就肯定会涉及到证人（主要会是船东与船东的其他证人）说谎或可能说谎的问题。这可节录Gof

27、f官在Armagasv. Mundogas SA (1985) 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 先例（案情涉及公司雇员隐瞒公司越权订立一份长期租约，这种雇员件多不胜数）说：公司的案“Speaking from my own experience, I have found it essential in cases of fraud, when considering the credibility of witnesses, always to test their veracity by reference to the objective facts proved indepen

28、dently of their testimony, in particular by reference to the documents in the case, and also to pay particular regard to their motives and to the overall probabilities. It is frequently very difficult to tell whether awitness is telling the truth or not; and where there is aof evidence .,reference t

29、o the objective facts and documents, to the witnesses' motives, and to theoverall probabilities, can be of very great assistance to a judge in ascertaining the truth.”证人说谎也不代表就要将他/证言一概，毕竟（或仲裁庭）的目的是找出争议事实的，不是为了惩罚有证人说谎的一方方。证人的谎言可细分为以下 3 种情况：(a) 证人对或证据的特定部份说谎;(b) 证人的整个故事都是;(c) 证人说谎去夸大他的，而这是不必要的愚蠢做法

30、（a stupid attempt）。官在 EPI Environmental Technologies Inc v. Symphony PlasticPeter SmithTechnologies Plc (2004) EWHC 2945 先例，这方面说：“I add a few of my own precautions. (i) First, it is essential to evaluate a witness's performance in the light of the entirety of his evidence. Witnesses can make mis

31、takes, but those mistakes do not necessarily affect other parts of their evidence. (ii) Second, witnesses can regularly lie. However, lies themselves do not mean necessarily that the entirety of that witness's evidence is rejected. A witness may lie in a stupid attempt to bolster a case, but the

32、 actual case nevertheless remains good irrespective of the lie. A witness may lie because the case is a lie”（三） 再对记忆的科学研究，一个传统对记忆的错觉是认为一位自然人或证人对某些事情/事实（例如经历过的惊险与，即使时隔已久）感觉强烈、记忆清晰，就往往会更接近事实。或是，证人越是有自信（confident）的表达就越是。这种现在已经被西方视为是错觉的想法在部份的心目中有可能还是根深蒂固。但看来在国际或仲裁的西方或仲裁员面前，证人表现得十分自信与记忆过于清晰恐怕反而会弄巧成拙了。这也配

33、合今天的一些说法，例如证人作证时的言行举止（demeanour）的重要性不大，今天太多国际商业在作证时都懂得做戏。所以是特别对一些时隔已久的事情/事实，证人在作证时如何上佳的表演都会是比不上一页当场文件证据（contemporaneous document）。事实上，很多研究都显示了记忆中的事情/事实容易忘记、有偏差与受到外来的人如果与有利系或为了对邀请作证的方效忠，在多年后作出的证据更容易有也无法察觉的偏见。而在证人证言的准备与拟定的过，即使代表律师尽量遵守专业操守，不教唆证人也不向证人提诱导性问题， 只是帮助证人回忆，最后版本的证人证言仍恐怕是“重建”（re-construction）多于

34、证人的“回忆”（re-collection）。所以，即使证人证言十分“完美”与证人在反盘问中对答如流，可接受为“诚实证人”，也要考虑到凭记忆提供的证据多变、不断受外来干预的影响（而证人证言的拟定与证人准备是对证人回忆的重要干预）与不可靠。这不是简单的非黑即白，不是即是事实。这里可以重复稍早提到的 Gestmin SGP AG v. Credit Suisse 先例。该先例的案情涉及经常会发生的客户指控他/给了错误投资建议并蒙受其损失。投资者（葡萄牙的富有公司）在出事后接近 6 年，时效终止前才开始起诉，显然双方证人根据回忆提供的证据可靠程度就成了问题。现实中这种年代悠久，文件证据不多而主要靠证

35、人回忆的争议还有不少。在该先例，Leggatt官在开始就说明他如何凭回忆作出的证据（Evidence based on recollection），说：“. In fact, psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid andmalleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. This is true even of so-call 'flashbulb' memories of experiencing or l

36、earning of a particularly shocking or traumatic event. (The very description 'flashbulb' memory is in fact misleading, reflecting as it does the misconception that memory operates like a camera or other device that makes a fixed record of an experience.) External information can intrude into

37、 a witness's memory, as can his or her own thoughts and beliefs, and can cause dramatic changes in recollection. Events can come to be recalled as memories which did not happen at all or which happened to someone else (referred to in the literature as a failure of source memory).Memory is especi

38、ally unreliable when it comes to recalling past beliefs. Ourmemories of past beliefs are revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs. Studies have also shown that memories are particularly vulnerable tointerference and alteration when ais presented with new information orsuggestion

39、 about an event in circumstances where his or her memory of it is alreadyweak due to the passage of time.The process of civil litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses topowerful biases. The nature of litigation is such that witnesses often have a stake in a particular version of events.

40、This is obvious where the witness is a party or has a tie of loyalty (such as an employment relationship) to a party to the proceedings. Other, more subtle influences include allegiances created by the process of preparing a witness statement and of coming to court to give evidence for one side in t

41、he dispute. A desire to assist, or at least not to prejudice, the party who has called the witness or that party's lawyers, as well as a natural desire to give a good impression in a public forum, can be significant motivating forces.Considerable interference with memory is also introduced in ci

42、vil litigation by theprocedure of preparing for trial. A witness is asked to make a statement, often when a long time has already elapsed since the relevant events. The statement is usually drafted for the witness by a lawyer who is inevitably conscious of the significance for the issues in the case

43、 of what the witness does or does not say. The statement is made after the witness's memory has been 'refreshed' by reading documents. Thedocuments considered often include statements of case and other argumentativematerial as well as documents which the witness did not see at the time o

44、r which came into existence after the events which he or she is being asked to recall. The statement may go through several iterations before it is finalized. Then, usually months later, the witness will be asked to re-read his or her statement and review documents again before giving evidence in co

45、urt. The effect of this process is to establish in the mind of the witness the matters recorded in his or her own statement and other written material, whether they be true or false, and to cause the witness's memory of event to be based increasingly on this material and later interpretations of

46、 it rather than on the original experience of the events. ”以上所讲的事实证人凭回忆对时隔已久的事情/事实作证的不可靠性， 官对他会怎样考虑与对待这种证据说：Leggatt“In the light of these considerations, the best approach for a judge to adopt in the trial of a commercial case is, in my view, to place little if any reliance at all on witnesses'

47、recollections of what was said in meetings and conversations（该先例显然涉及与之间多年前的多次会面与交谈内容中是否存在误述、是否提醒有关投资风险等等的指控）, and to base factual findings on inferences drawn from the documentary evidence and known or probable facts. This does not mean that oral testimony serves no useful purpose - though its utili

48、ty is often disproportionate to its length. But its value lies largely, as I see it, in the opportu which cross-examination affords to subject the documentary record to criticalscrutiny and to gauge theality, motivations and working practices of awitness, rather than in testimony of what the witness

49、 recalls of particularconversations and events. Above all, it is important to avoid the fallacy of supposing that, because a witness has confidence in his or her recollection and is honest, evidence based on that recollection provides any reliable guide to the truth.”（四） 证人证言太长、准备与拟定的花费也太昂贵，内容中经常包括事

50、实证人不应的争辩（arguments）、个人意见（opinions）、与双方的争议无会是多方面关与/或不重要的事情等。造成这些问题（特别是最后一点）的的，如：(i) 难以阻挡多一个从不同角度争辩的机会的吸引力，即使这代表律师在最后的结案（Closing Submissions）中争辩。(ii) 以证人证言替代主证据，所以代表律师只怕有遗漏而不太担心多写内容， 所以事无大小，只要与争议能扯上一点关系就会加在证人证言中。比如笔者（杨良宜）的前的一个仲裁，争议涉及合约条文的解释，但双方证人的证言中却长篇大论地了双方早期履约的问题与互指对方不合理。这些“事实”与双方争议没有关系，但带来无谓的争辩与严重

51、拖长了交叉盘问/反盘问。这也是有说法是证人证言相比以前的口头主证据并没有省钱与省开理时间。2. 对证人证言的再度显然在面对大量与权威性批评的情况下，这一个人证言的做法肯定需要改变，甚至被取消而重新回到原来以口头作出主证据的做法。例如，Aikens 大的工作小组在 2007 年 12 月作出Report and Recommendations of theCommercial Court Long Trials Working Party报告，内容主要是复杂与金额庞，其中有关证人大的国际商业涉及漫长的开理，如何在程序上证言的建议可节录如下：“75. The recommendations tha

52、t follow apply to all types of Commercial Court case. The Guide should be amended accordingly：a. Witness statements must be as short as possible and cover only those issueson which the witness can give relevant evidence. There must be headings in witness statements that correspond to the relevant is

53、sue in the List of Issues.1b. Documents referred to in a witness statement must be given a reference bythe relevant party which will usually be a disclosure reference, and these should benoexhibit with the witness statement. Where disclosure has been givenelectronically and it is possible to include

54、 a hyperlink to documents referred towithin the witness statement, this should be done.2c. The judge should always consider whether to impose a limit on the length ofwitness statements. This should be discussed at the CMC setting the timetable for witness statements. Parties should be reminded that

55、costs sanctions may follow if they serve unduly lengthy witness statements or statements which contain material which is not relevant.3d. In some cases (eg. Where there are allegations of fraud) it may be ofparticular assistance to the judge in making findings of fact to hear a witness give1人证言必须尽量短

56、且只能包括与证人能提供证据的争议有内容。证人证言中应有标题对应争议中的有关争议。2人证言不应包括纸质附件，如果提到文件应使方当事人披露的文件的编号。如果是电子披露，应尽量在证人证言中使用超到提到的文件。管理会议（CMC）讨论仲裁时间表（包括上交换证人3（如果是仲裁就是仲裁员）应在证言程序）时考虑是否限制证人证言的长度。当事人应被提醒如果他们递交了过长的证人证言或证人证言包含大量无，将会在费用方面被惩罚。evidence in chief about certain issues in his or her own words (as well as having thewitness statement in evidence). The parties and the court must give consideration to this point (if relevant) at the Pre-Trial Review (PTR).4e. The court should not be afraid to dispense with the need for witnessstatements if the time and expense involved in their