先生證人證言

1、證人證言1. 證人證言的缺陷與近期批評12. 對證人證言的再度.93. 證人證言的擬定133.1 做法之一143.2 做法之二163.3 證人證言擬定的結(jié)論194. 證人證言的格式與內(nèi)容205. 律師擬定證人證言的操守256. 交換證人證言的時間277. 證人證言之后的修改298. 幫助證人或潛在證人回憶（Memory Refreshing）309. 交叉盤問/反盤問不受證人證言內(nèi)容局限331. 證人證言的缺陷與近期批評在 1986 年后，證人證言（Witness Statement）才通過高院規(guī)則（Rulesof the Supreme Court 或簡稱 RSC）之 Order 38，ru

2、le 2A.3 被引入英國民事訴訟程序，作為替代口頭的主證據(jù)（Oral Evidence-in-Chief）。這種做法首先出現(xiàn)在英國的商業(yè)（Commercial Court），但很快就被延伸到其他與其他普通法或地區(qū)的（特區(qū)）。而國際仲裁也很快作出同樣的改變，接受這種做法。這在當(dāng)時被視為是一個很好的民事程序的，正如在當(dāng)時的白皮書（White Book）說：“an outstanding and far-reaching change in the machineryof civil justice.”同時，一個的目的包括節(jié)省開庭時間與費(fèi)方開庭前把牌面攤在桌上（Cards on the table

3、）的理念，與消滅因?yàn)椴活A(yù)先知道或猜測對方證人的與主證據(jù)而在開理時被突擊（ambush）與感到驚訝（surprise），進(jìn)而令變得與減低開庭前最后機(jī)會和解的可能性等。但在操作了 30 年后，近年來的實(shí)踐做法受到不少批評。早在 Woolf 勛爵 1996年的Access to Justice報(bào)告中，就已經(jīng)批評證人證言變成了一份由律師擬定的法律文件，與讓不律的事實(shí)證人以文書形式提交想要與需要院作出的證據(jù)的本意越去越遠(yuǎn)。很難相信如果該證人在出庭以口頭作出主證據(jù)時，在沒有引導(dǎo)性問題（leading questions）協(xié)助的情況下，仍會以口頭說出與相同的內(nèi)容。人證言可節(jié)錄部份批評如下：（一）在 1996

4、 年的Access to Justice報(bào)告中，Woolf 勛爵說：“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 官說：“（指在該先例的情況）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官說證人證言現(xiàn)在變成是律師根據(jù)披露了的文件狡黠地塑造，再也不是證人證言本應(yīng)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，官說證人證言免不了會在反復(fù)多次重復(fù)后才會正式交出給。這Leggatt證言也通常是由律師來草擬，而他/她是完全知道哪一些事實(shí)是重要或不重要，輕重怎樣掌握。這一來，Leggatt官認(rèn)為證人證言最后只是有關(guān)證人對爭議事實(shí)的回憶，不論這回憶的事

7、實(shí)是真或是假（“will ultimately become the record of a witness' memory whether in fact it is true or false”）。官也談及自然人（Natural）記憶（memory）的可靠性，Leggatt這也在之后 GH v. The Catholic Child Welfare Society (2016) EWHC 337 (QB) 先例被認(rèn)同。近期對記憶的研究顯示兩種相假設(shè)是錯誤的。第一種是以為對一件事件的回顧是感覺越強(qiáng)烈與越清楚，這一個回憶是正確的可能性就越大。第二種是兩位對立的證人，更有自信的一位更有可

8、能回憶是正確：“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官指出近期對這方面的研究顯示了記憶是與可塑的，也經(jīng)Leggatt常會在自然人追溯回憶時被重寫：“. psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved ”此外當(dāng)一個自然人因?yàn)闀r間的流逝對于一件事的記憶已經(jīng)變得很弱時，被顯示了新的信息或建議，記憶也特別容易預(yù)與改變：“. 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 勛爵在 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 .”而證人證言則令這方面變得更糟。最后，Leggatt官人證據(jù)的可靠性還有以下因素：（1）事實(shí)證人通常與有關(guān)有利系。（2）證人證言通常是律師擬定，并在證人被提供以往的文件協(xié)助回憶，以及參閱了陳述（Statements of Case）并了解雙方方的立場后才定稿。（3）證人在開理前準(zhǔn)備接受盤問階段就熟讀了已交出與交換的證人證言。這一來，無論證人證言是對是錯（或有對有錯），證人更加深信其內(nèi)容就是的記憶?？梢哉f，證人證言擬定的過程是可以塑造（reconstruct）并可能扭曲了證人的回憶。（

12、五）在 Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander v. UBS AG (2014) EWHC 2450 (Comm)先例，Andrew Smith官說：“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官說 ：“ This trend to produce over-lengthy andargumentative witness statements must stop. It is wasteful of costs and the cou

14、rt'svaluable time.”官也說到在的將來，商業(yè)可能會限定證人證言的頁數(shù)與Field要求方院確認(rèn)有完全遵守證人證言的規(guī)則：“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，認(rèn)為花了大量時間與金錢的證人證言其實(shí)沒有用，沒有什么證據(jù)價值（evidential value），反而欠缺證人真正 were "notably lacking from the witness statement

16、s"）。true voice of the witnesses澳大利亞也有不少批評人證言問題的這方面先例，可節(jié)錄部份如下：（八）澳大利亞最高院在 Toll (FGCT) Ptyv. Alphapharm Pty CLR165; (2004) HCA52 先例說：(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.”（加黑部分是筆者的強(qiáng)調(diào)）（九）在 Concrete Ptyv. Parramatta Design & Developments Pty(2006)HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577 先例，Callinan官說：“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.”（加黑部分是筆者的強(qiáng)調(diào)）綜合以上的部分案例中的嚴(yán)厲批評，可以看到人證言的缺陷，可以說是原來引進(jìn)證人證言以替代口頭的主證據(jù)/主詢問基本性改變到的。這些缺陷可簡單介紹如下：制度時預(yù)計(jì)不（一） 現(xiàn)在，在精明的律師協(xié)助下準(zhǔn)備與擬定的證人證言，實(shí)際是無法替代口頭的主證據(jù)。因?yàn)樵谶@個私下與的過，不要說律師免不了向證人提出誘導(dǎo)性問題，甚至可能會做出更不符合專業(yè)操守的事

25、情。加上證人證言這份文件會在多次修改（不代表是改為更接近或證人原來講的話）與潤色后才會交出/交換，難以相信該證人如果是以口頭作出主證據(jù)也是與文件同樣的內(nèi)容。這令（或仲裁庭）在該證人接受交叉盤問/反盤問后，看到他/她在回答很簡單的問題是猶豫不決，或顯露了對證人證言所講的內(nèi)容不熟悉或有誤解，甚至坦率承認(rèn)是由代表律師“包辦”而只是在“大致認(rèn)同”的情況下簽字等等，是很難相信與以來以找出尋找爭議事實(shí)的。（二） 這些年來對自然人的記憶的科學(xué)研究顯示了對自然人的記憶有不少誤解或錯覺。這并非是證人刻意撒謊的情況，這種情況在一般的國際商業(yè)爭議發(fā)生通常的不多，因?yàn)橐坏┍徊鸫泻蠊麌?yán)重。一般國際商業(yè)爭議的證人，即

26、使是與的結(jié)果有密切的利系，例如關(guān)鍵證人是方公司的雇員或高管，通常仍不夠動力/誘因（motive）院說謊。只有相對少數(shù)是證人有很大與很動力/誘因，例如他/她是規(guī)模較小型的公司，公司，敗訴會傾家蕩產(chǎn)與身敗名裂。如果不是一般的國際商業(yè)爭議，如涉及與不誠實(shí)（例如航運(yùn)頻頻發(fā)生的破壞船舶以騙取保險費(fèi)的，像近期著名的 Suez Fortune Investments& Piraeus Bank AE v. Talbot Underwriting&others 2019 EWHC 2599 Comm先例）的，就肯定會涉及到證人（主要會是船東與船東的其他證人）說謊或可能說謊的問題。這可節(jié)錄Gof

27、f官在Armagasv. Mundogas SA (1985) 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 先例（案情涉及公司雇員隱瞞公司越權(quán)訂立一份長期租約，這種雇員件多不勝數(shù)）說：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.”證人說謊也不代表就要將他/證言一概，畢竟（或仲裁庭）的目的是找出爭議事實(shí)的，不是為了懲罰有證人說謊的一方方。證人的謊言可細(xì)分為以下 3 種情況：(a) 證人對或證據(jù)的特定部份說謊;(b) 證人的整個故事都是;(c) 證人說謊去夸大他的，而這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，這方面說：“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） 再對記憶的科學(xué)研究，一個傳統(tǒng)對記憶的錯覺是認(rèn)為一位自然人或證人對某些事情/事實(shí)（例如經(jīng)歷過的驚險與，即使時隔已久）感覺強(qiáng)烈、記憶清晰，就往往會更接近事實(shí)。或是，證人越是有自信（confident）的表達(dá)就越是。這種現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)被西方視為是錯覺的想法在部份的心目中有可能還是根深蒂固。但看來在國際或仲裁的西方或仲裁員面前，證人表現(xiàn)得十分自信與記憶過于清晰恐怕反而會弄巧成拙了。這也配

33、合今天的一些說法，例如證人作證時的言行舉止（demeanour）的重要性不大，今天太多國際商業(yè)在作證時都懂得做戲。所以是特別對一些時隔已久的事情/事實(shí)，證人在作證時如何上佳的表演都會是比不上一頁當(dāng)場文件證據(jù)（contemporaneous document）。事實(shí)上，很多研究都顯示了記憶中的事情/事實(shí)容易忘記、有偏差與受到外來的人如果與有利系或?yàn)榱藢ρ堊髯C的方效忠，在多年后作出的證據(jù)更容易有也無法察覺的偏見。而在證人證言的準(zhǔn)備與擬定的過，即使代表律師盡量遵守專業(yè)操守，不教唆證人也不向證人提誘導(dǎo)性問題， 只是幫助證人回憶，最后版本的證人證言仍恐怕是“重建”（re-construction）多于

34、證人的“回憶”（re-collection）。所以，即使證人證言十分“完美”與證人在反盤問中對答如流，可接受為“誠實(shí)證人”，也要考慮到憑記憶提供的證據(jù)多變、不斷受外來干預(yù)的影響（而證人證言的擬定與證人準(zhǔn)備是對證人回憶的重要干預(yù)）與不可靠。這不是簡單的非黑即白，不是即是事實(shí)。這里可以重復(fù)稍早提到的 Gestmin SGP AG v. Credit Suisse 先例。該先例的案情涉及經(jīng)常會發(fā)生的客戶指控他/給了錯誤投資建議并蒙受其損失。投資者（葡萄牙的富有公司）在出事后接近 6 年，時效終止前才開始起訴，顯然雙方證人根據(jù)回憶提供的證據(jù)可靠程度就成了問題?，F(xiàn)實(shí)中這種年代悠久，文件證據(jù)不多而主要靠證

35、人回憶的爭議還有不少。在該先例，Leggatt官在開始就說明他如何憑回憶作出的證據(jù)（Evidence based on recollection），說：“. 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. ”以上所講的事實(shí)證人憑回憶對時隔已久的事情/事實(shí)作證的不可靠性， 官對他會怎樣考慮與對待這種證據(jù)說：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（該先例顯然涉及與之間多年前的多次會面與交談內(nèi)容中是否存在誤述、是否提醒有關(guān)投資風(fēng)險等等的指控）, 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） 證人證言太長、準(zhǔn)備與擬定的花費(fèi)也太昂貴，內(nèi)容中經(jīng)常包括事

50、實(shí)證人不應(yīng)的爭辯（arguments）、個人意見（opinions）、與雙方的爭議無會是多方面關(guān)與/或不重要的事情等。造成這些問題（特別是最后一點(diǎn)）的的，如：(i) 難以阻擋多一個從不同角度爭辯的機(jī)會的吸引力，即使這代表律師在最后的結(jié)案（Closing Submissions）中爭辯。(ii) 以證人證言替代主證據(jù)，所以代表律師只怕有遺漏而不太擔(dān)心多寫內(nèi)容， 所以事無大小，只要與爭議能扯上一點(diǎn)關(guān)系就會加在證人證言中。比如筆者（楊良宜）的前的一個仲裁，爭議涉及合約條文的解釋，但雙方證人的證言中卻長篇大論地了雙方早期履約的問題與互指對方不合理。這些“事實(shí)”與雙方爭議沒有關(guān)系，但帶來無謂的爭辯與嚴(yán)重

51、拖長了交叉盤問/反盤問。這也是有說法是證人證言相比以前的口頭主證據(jù)并沒有省錢與省開理時間。2. 對證人證言的再度顯然在面對大量與權(quán)威性批評的情況下，這一個人證言的做法肯定需要改變，甚至被取消而重新回到原來以口頭作出主證據(jù)的做法。例如，Aikens 大的工作小組在 2007 年 12 月作出Report and Recommendations of theCommercial Court Long Trials Working Party報(bào)告，內(nèi)容主要是復(fù)雜與金額龐，其中有關(guān)證人大的國際商業(yè)涉及漫長的開理，如何在程序上證言的建議可節(jié)錄如下：“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人證言必須盡量短

56、且只能包括與證人能提供證據(jù)的爭議有內(nèi)容。證人證言中應(yīng)有標(biāo)題對應(yīng)爭議中的有關(guān)爭議。2人證言不應(yīng)包括紙質(zhì)附件，如果提到文件應(yīng)使方當(dāng)事人披露的文件的編號。如果是電子披露，應(yīng)盡量在證人證言中使用超到提到的文件。管理會議（CMC）討論仲裁時間表（包括上交換證人3（如果是仲裁就是仲裁員）應(yīng)在證言程序）時考慮是否限制證人證言的長度。當(dāng)事人應(yīng)被提醒如果他們遞交了過長的證人證言或證人證言包含大量無，將會在費(fèi)用方面被懲罰。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