Many of our appellants show up with a spouse, partner or friend at the hearing. Since most of our chairmen prefer to distinguish travelling companions from witnesses before the hearing, we are used to being asked by the clerks whether the companion will be giving evidence.Witnesses are called into the hearing only when their evidence is to be given; companions may be present throughout, but will not be asked to give evidence ( although the chairman has some discretion here).In our office, the normal practice is not to call companions as witnesses unless what they have to say has some independent value as evidence.
Today, however, I was surprised to hear a chairman go out of his way to say, in two cases where a companion was sitting with the appellant for moral support, that the failure to call a witness where one was available might ( not "shall", he added) prompt an adverse inference.
Am I starting at shadows, or has there been a sinister new development?

i find having to second guess what approach the tribunal might take all the time adds to my paranoia levels - but i'm not aware of anything.

i've found the birmingham tribunal quite relaxed in the area of travelling companions, and the question of giving evidence is not normally asked beforehand. your post reminds me that it could be an issue, and i haven't given much thought to it. chairs here use their discretion about evidence from spouses etc. sometimes a contribution from the 'moral supporter' is given in such spontaneous terms that its authenticity cannot be doubted, and there have been occasions when this type of contribution is an absolute and completely unanticipated (by me) clincher.

strictly speaking i suppose there is an argument to consider the 'witness' role of companions more formally, as the body of increasingly complex statute law and sophisticated case law drives tribunals further from the 'user-friendly DIY' role originally intended. if that's the case however, imo something valuable to appellants and tribunals would be lost, and i would prefer to see the continued use of discretion by tribunals in this area.

jj

jj,
Thanks for the thoughts.I should have mentioned in my earlier post that not all chairmen in the Glasgow area are strict about the distinction.Many will admit or even seek information from companions at the hearing.The concern here was that we might, faced with a strict chairman,have to treat companions as witnesses unless it was quite clear that they could add nothing to the case.Was there, I wondered,an evil piece of case law to suggest that where a companion might have been expected to support the appellant but could no longer be treated as a witness, the inference should be drawn against the appellant.
However,I now see that there was no need for concern.Perhaps the chairman I mentioned was making a very general observation about evidence.
{Chicken Licken mode OFF}