- What does CPR 32.PD.18.1 mean in terms of the witness’s ‘own language’?
- Choices for multilingual claimants post-Afzal v UK Insurance.
An appeal was recently heard by Mr Justice Freedman about whether the preparation of a witness statement in English by a multilingual claimant was CPR-compliant or in breach of practice direction 32.PD.18.1. The case is now reported as Afzal v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 1730 (KB). In short, the court had to decide what the meaning of 32.PD.18.1 was, namely: ‘The witness statement must, if practicable, be in the intended witness’s own words and must in any event be drafted in their own language,’ (my emphasis).
Why on earth does that need interpreting, one asks? If the witness is multilingual, as was the position in Afzal, can the witness use English for their statement or do they have to use their own/mother tongue? Freedman J decided the meaning of the practice direction should be understood in the context of the persuasive
