How to prepare non-English witness statement properly

The recent news of Santiago V MIB has got Claimant personal injury Solicitors celebrating. The cost of preparing their client’s evidence is was finally recoverable again in Fixed Recoverable Costs cases.

It is so important not just from a funding perspective but an access to justice. Many clients, whose first language main* isn’t English, would be subject to PD 32 in respect of how their statement would be prepared.

The emphasis on ‘reasonably incurred’ cost of translation can be supported by Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). More importantly, following Correia is likely to be the best way to ensure the witness statement complies with PD 32.

What does PD 32 actually say?

Paragraph 18.1 says:-

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

Paragraph 20.1 says:-

A witness statement is the equivalent of the oral evidence which that witness would, if called, give in evidence; it must include a statement by the intended witness in their own language that they believe the facts in it are true

Paragraph 32.2 says:-

Where a witness statement is in a foreign language—

(a) the party wishing to rely on it must—

(i) have it translated; and

(ii) file the foreign language witness statement with the court; and

(b) the translator must sign the original statement and must certify that the translation is accurate

This broadly means that it must be drafted in the witness’ own language*, the statement of truth must be in their own language and an English copy must be prepared with a statement from the translator certifying its accuracy.

What does Correia suggest?

The trial Judge in Correia refused the Claimant permission to try and remedy his defective statement (which was in English and had a verification for the Solicitor who confirmed he took the Claimant’s statement in Portuguese, wrote it down in English and translated it to the Claimant in Portuguese orally before the Claimant signed it).

One of the many remedies proposed was to have the interpreter at trial read out the English statement in Portuguese and ask him to confirm it was true to the best of his knowledge and beliefs. The trial Judge rejected this because he said this was ‘double translation’ and also would essentially be leading questions in an examination in chief.

The High Court rejected the Claimant’s appeal submissions, endorsing the criticism made of the Claimant’s remedial suggestions. The one thing that Garnham J did state was that it was wrong for the trial Judge to suggest the defective statement was not a statement. A Court can allow a statement to be relied on even if it was defective, but only with the Court’s permission and the Judge was entitled to prevent reliance on the statement.

How to ensure the statement is prepared in a way compliance with PD 32 and Correia?

The criticism and subsequent endorsement of the criticism about how the statement was prepared gives an insight as to how PD 32 is to be interpreted. One might say, how witness statements should be prepared.

As we know, the witness statement is the evidence in chief. Decades ago a witness would give evidence in chief like witnesses do in criminal matters. An advocate would elicit evidence with open questions:-

What did you see?

What happened next?

Who was first to arrive?

The problem is that some statements (even those drafted in English) appear to be prepared almost from documents in the words of the drafter, not the witness. This is not appropriate and would be leading (which is what the trial Judge was concerned about).

To avoid this, litigators ought to have conferences with their witnesses (the mode of which, such as face to face, telephone, etc. must now be confirmed in the witness statement as per PD 32 para 18.1(5)) and elicit the evidence from the witness with open questions.

(I remind any CILEX Fellows who do not have advocacy rights to watch my webinar which explains how the training and exercising right of audience will improve your litigation and this is a prime example, as you will be taught how to elicit evidence with non-leading questions).

Conference with a translator

To ensure the witness’ own evidence is elicited accurately, arrange a conference with a translator. The translator should be instructed to accurately translate what the witness says into English.

I would recommend you break down open questions in to smaller bite sized ones. You can still limit an open question to ensure the question is focused. When you are satisfied with the answer, ask the translator to write down the what the witness said in the own language exactly how it was said.

The contents will be used to prepare the witness’ statement. It will be a slow and drawn out process, but this will ensure that the statement is in their own words and their own language. This is also going to take longer if the language does not use a latin alphabet (such a script like Sinhala or Arabic) as the translator may need to handwrite the responses in the first instance.

Finalising the draft statement

I would usually send a draft template to the translator to translate. This should be the statement headed, the first few paragraphs setting out who the witness is and how the statement was prepared (via a translator during a conference (specifying the mode of conference) and ask the translator to ensure the statement of truth is translated accurately. This will comply with CPR PD 32 para 20.1.

The translator can put the statement together providing you’ve talked them through the statement real time during the conference with the witness You should then have a statement, in the appropriate format, in the witness’ own language.

Approval by the witness

The outcome is that you have a statement that is in the witnesses own words and language and they will approve the statement or, if need be, confirm what needs amending (which should be as simple as providing to the translator to make the necessary adjustment).

Once the witness approves the statement, send it to them to sign/date.

English translation

Once you have a fully endorsed statement, you can then ask the translator to prepare an English version of the statement.

This does not need to be signed by the witness, but you should prepare a statement for the translator to have both the witness’ statement and the English translation exhibited and for the translator to confirm that they prepared the English translation and that they certify that the translation is accurate. This will ensure compliance with CPR PD 32 para 23.2.

Once you have reached this state you will have a witness statement that complies with CPR PD 32.

Demonstrating the costs were reasonably incurred

This is where asking the translator to breakdown the steps in their invoice will aid in recovery. If there is any objection, refer the other party to paragraph 26 of Correia and the relevant paragraphs of CPR PD 32 above.

The cost will be higher if the witness statement is more detailed and the written language is script, rather than something like the Latin alphabet.

Information 

AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.

From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.

*News of Afzal -v- UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 1730 (KB) means that someone who is bilingual may not require a statement prepared in their own language. Shout out to Gordon Exall for bringing this case to everyone’s attention.