Sir John Romilly MR discussed the possibility of a witness being honest but mistaken: ‘it must always be borne in mind . . how extremely prone persons are to believe what they wish. And where persons are once persuaded of the truth of such a fact, as that a particular person was the uncle of their father, it is every day’s experience that their imagination is apt to supply the evidence of that which they believe to be true. It is a matter of frequent observation that persons dwelling for a long time on facts which they believed must have occurred, and trying to remember whether they did so or not, come at least to persuade themselves that they do actually recollect the occurrences of circumstances which at first they only begin by believing must have happened. What was originally the result of imagination becomes in time the result of recollection, and the judging of which and drawing just inferences from which is rendered much more difficult by the circumstance that, in many cases, persons do really, by attentive and careful recollection, recall the memory of facts which had faded away, and were not, when first questioned, present to the mind of the witness. Thus it is, that a clue given or a note made at the time frequently recalls facts which had passed from the memory of the witness . . Once impress the witnesses with [a] belief that . . and further steps follow rapidly enough. In the course of a few years, by constant talk and discussion of the matter, and by endeavouring to remember past conversations, without imputing anything like wilful and corrupt perjury to witnesses of this description, I believe that in 1847 they may conscientiously bring themselves to believe that they remembered conversations and declarations which they had wholly forgotten in 1830, and that they may in truth bona fide believe that they have heard and remembered conversations and observations which in truth never existed, but are the mere offspring of their imaginations.’
Judges:
Sir John Romilly MR
Citations:
1852 16 Beav 182
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd QBD 29-Jul-2008
The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.277725
