Witness statement for a bus/pedestrian encounter

Johno100

w00519772 wrote: »

This is clearly stated in the question: "About 6 months ago I had a letter from a firm of solicitors representing the pedestrian asking for a statement.".

But that doesn't mean the investigators who are making contact now are working for the pedestrians solicitors, they could be seeking evidence for the bus company or their insurers.

Geoff1963

I vaguely remember a witness being asked to give evidence at an inquest of some sort, several years after an original inquest.
They declined to attend, saying that the original evidence they gave, was their best recollection at the time, since which their memory had faded ; so if they attended the new inquest, all they would be doing is reading their original statement. = "I have nothing more to add", but in a neutral way.

a hand-delivered request from a firm of investigators asking for yet another statement, to be given to them in person.

I'd report that to the police ; even if they laugh in your face, you can then include in your warn-off letter to the firm of investigators that, "I have reported this matter to the police". You should also warn them not to pass your home address onto anyone else, such as the injured pedestrian.

If you are asked to give evidence, you can read from your original statement ; after 18 months, no--one can expect you to remember anything new, nor criticise your statement at the time because you can't remember it now. The whole purpose of a near-contemporaneous witness statement, is to capture your thinking while it is fresh. If you were being asked for the first time now, your evidence would carry little weight ; so it is clearly less weighty than your original statement, even if it completely contradicted it.

Perhaps you would be asked to say you lied at the time, and it was really the bus driver's fault ; but even if that were true, the bus company's lawyers would have that rejected as being not a credible witness.

Manxman_in_exile

Geoff1963 wrote: »

I vaguely remember a witness being asked to give evidence at an inquest of some sort, several years after an original inquest.
They declined to attend, saying that the original evidence they gave, was their best recollection at the time, since which their memory had faded ; so if they attended the new inquest, all they would be doing is reading their original statement. = "I have nothing more to add", but in a neutral way.


I'd report that to the police ; even if they laugh in your face, you can then include in your warn-off letter to the firm of investigators that, "I have reported this matter to the police". You should also warn them not to pass your home address onto anyone else, such as the injured pedestrian.

If you are asked to give evidence, you can read from your original statement ; after 18 months, no--one can expect you to remember anything new, nor criticise your statement at the time because you can't remember it now. The whole purpose of a near-contemporaneous witness statement, is to capture your thinking while it is fresh. If you were being asked for the first time now, your evidence would carry little weight ; so it is clearly less weighty than your original statement, even if it completely contradicted it.

Perhaps you would be asked to say you lied at the time, and it was really the bus driver's fault ; but even if that were true, the bus company's lawyers would have that rejected as being not a credible witness.

That better expresses what I was trying to say.

Laz123

How can you walk into the side of a bus? It sounds like the Tommy Cooper joke, 'The other day I walked into a bar. I said ouch. It was an iron bar.'

pseudonim

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm not sure that is so sensible. I think you can't refuse to answer questions in court. Although I can't imagine a judge asking a question themselves, other than to direct you to answer a question asked by counsel which you as a witness have refused to answer. I wouldn't refuse to answer any question in court.

I must admit I thought the same, and I also wouldn't refuse to answer a question in court.

keithdc wrote: »

It was not explicitly stated in original post that investigators were working on behalf of pedestrian, and OP has not clarified.

Not explicitly, no, because the letter doesn't state who their client is and I haven't contacted them to ask. However, I did say in my OP "...I gave a statement to the police to that effect at the time, and also a written statement to the bus company." so they really have no reason to contact me again (and had they done so I would expect it to have been done in a more straightforward and professional manner).

Laz123 wrote: »

How can you walk into the side of a bus?

It was a pretty astonishing thing to see, and something that no reasonable person in full posession of their faculties would have done.

silverwhistle

pseudonim wrote: »

It was a pretty astonishing thing to see, and something that no reasonable person in full posession of their faculties would have done.

Can we quote you on that?

I must say that the idea of a hand delivered letter sounds unprofessional. Was it signed with a legible signature?

pseudonim

silverwhistle wrote: »

Can we quote you on that?

I must say that the idea of a hand delivered letter sounds unprofessional. Was it signed with a legible signature?

No, just a squiggle above a printed name. It's actually a form letter with some bits relating to me and the incident filled in by hand.

Anyway, having digested the suggestions made here I sent a text to the mobile number provided to say that I had nothing to add to my statement given at the time and for them not to contact me again. I also advised that the number I'd sent the text from was unmonitored so it was pointless for them to reply to it - true, as it's my spare phone that I keep in the car for emergencies.

Hopefully I won't hear any more from them.