Steve Shim J:

This is an application by counsel for the defendant to cross-examine PW1 as to what transpired between him and counsel for the plaintiff during an adjournment. It has been alleged by counsel for the defendant that PW1 and counsel for the plaintiff were seen discussing matters arising out of the cross-examination of PW1 suggesting that PW1 was being coached in his evidence while still in the process of being cross-examined. The application is opposed by counsel for the plaintiff.

If an officer - or indeed anyone connected with a case - enters unnecessarily into conversation with a witness as to his or her evidence during an adjournment of the witness's testimony, the officer at once exposes himself and the witness to the suggestion that the evidence subsequently given is in some way affected by such conversation and possibly disturbed so as to present a picture more favourable to one side.

The use of the word "unnecessarily" would seem to suggest that there is no total prohibition involved and that there are perhaps occasions where conversations or discussions, which are found to be necessary, are allowed. However, if the discussion is in the nature of coaching a witness in his evidence as to what he is expected to say in the witness-box, then I think, that would be most reprehensible and calls for condemnation in the strongest terms. Here, a specific allegation has been made that there was coaching by counsel for the plaintiff of PW1 in the discussion between them during an adjournment while PW1 was still under cross-examination. In response, counsel for the plaintiff maintains that she did not (to use her own words) "have any dealings with PW1 behind anybody's back". What that means is not entirely clear. She does not specifically refute the allegation raised by counsel for the defendant which naturally opens the door to an inference that there may be some truth in the allegation. In the circumstances, I think it fair and proper to allow the application.