Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 114
The use of AI for trial witness statements strikes
us as problematic. The purpose of a trial witness
statement is to give the evidence that the witness
would give if giving oral evidence in chief, and it
should be in their “own words”. The whole point
of Practice Direction 57AC when it was introduced
in 2021, was to move away from a mechanical
recitation and analysis of documents and/or an
“over-lawyering” of statements. It is hard to see how
the use of AI to generate trial witness statements
could be in keeping with that philosophy and the
requirements of PD57AC- which are re-emphasised
in the recent TCC Guide (p. 89).
Reference
[1] For a helpful summary see the article by Isabel Barter and
John Williams: AI and the Courts: The Civil Justice Council’s
Consultation on Preparing Court Documents – 4 New Square
Chambers
[2] Some of which are 昀氀agged in the Interim Report and
Consultation.
[3] For instance: R (Ayinde) v LB Haringey, Al-Haroun v Qatar
National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383, UK and R (on the application
of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026]
UKUT 81 and Cork and another v Mark Smith [2026] EWHC 1199
(Ch).
[4] It then goes on to remind legal representatives of the need
to protect con昀椀dentiality in any data in respect of which AI is
used and to check the accuracy of any research of case citations
generated by AI>
The CJC seem to recognise this and propose there
should be a rule requiring a declaration that AI
has not been used for the purpose of drafting such
witness statements.
The position seems to be di昀昀erent for non-trial
witness statements where it is proposed by the CJC
that the position should be in line with that for
statements of case and skeleton arguments.
Experts
Experts already occupy a di昀昀erent position to legal
representatives in their dealings with the court.
For instance, they are expected to be clear about
what data they have relied on, and what they have
and have not reviewed (see e.g. CPR PD35 para 3.23.3). The TCC Guide provides that any calculations
produced by software such as Excel should be
disclosed, setting a precedent for disclosure of some
tools (p. 101). So should AI use be any di昀昀erent?
C h a rt e re d S u r ve y o rs
The CJC’s reference to “proportionate transparency”
in its June 2026 Update is intriguing. It suggests that
the CJC will impose some type of formal, speci昀椀c
requirement that experts disclose their AI use.
Whether that is done by amending the experts’
statement or producing guidance requiring a
speci昀椀c explanation within the body of the report
(or by some other route) remains to be seen.
Mr David Parkin
Residential Valuer
BSc FRICS LETAPAEWE
One thing that is clear is that cross-examination
into the process by which expert reports have
been produced is likely to increase- as has been
the experience since the introduction of CPR PD
57AC governing the process for producing witness
statements.
I am Managing Director at Lamberts having worked in London for approximately
40 years, developing skills in residential Valuation.
Lamberts is a highly professional general practise (40 staff) firm of Chartered
Surveyors with expertise in commercial and residential valuation as well as
property management and Building Surveying.
In addition to myself our Expert Witness team also includes, Phil Ellis on
Residential and Ross Freese on Commercial.
We have all attended the Legal Experience Training Advanced Professional
Award in Expert Witness Evidence (LETAPAEWE) accredited by Edexcel at a
level 7 (Masters level) BTEC. This training gives an insight into the working of
expert evidence and court appearance.
© Amanda Savage KC and Helen Evans KC, 4 New
Square Chambers, July 2026
This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice.
Advice about a given set of facts should always be taken.
Contact:
Telephone: 020 7520 2317
Mobile: 07764 577 535
Email: dave.parkin@lambertsurv.co.uk
www.lambertsurv.co.uk
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
112
AUGUST 2026
