Witness Evidence in Military Hearing-Loss Claims: Family, Colleagues and Former Service Personnel

Military hearing-loss cases are not proved by audiograms alone.

Records and medical evidence may show hearing thresholds, tinnitus history, service dates, postings and medical treatment. But they may not show what military service was actually like day to day.

They may not record:

• how often somebody was on a firing range;
• where they stood in relation to a weapon;
• whether hearing protection was routinely available or worn;
• what happened during a particular blast;
• when family members first noticed hearing difficulty;
• how hearing loss affects conversations, work or relationships.

That is where witness evidence can become useful, and different witnesses help with different questions.

A former colleague may be able to describe the noise environment. A spouse may be able to describe the effect of the hearing loss. A parent may remember contemporaneous complaints of tinnitus after deployment.

But none of them should be turned into a medical expert. A useful witness says what they saw, heard, experienced or genuinely remember — they should not be coached to prove a particular legal theory.

The short version

• Witness evidence is factual evidence, not medical expert evidence.
• A family member can describe hearing difficulties they observed, repeated conversations, television volume, telephone problems, social withdrawal, sleep disruption, complaints about tinnitus and changes over time.
• They cannot normally diagnose NIHL or prove what caused it.
• A former military colleague can describe duties, weapons, vehicles, aircraft, machinery, exercises, proximity to noise, hearing-protection practices and particular incidents.
• They should not invent exact round counts, decibel levels or dates they do not remember.
• A colleague who served in the same regiment but not at the same place and time may have much less useful evidence than someone who actually worked alongside the claimant.
• Contemporaneous complaints can be particularly valuable.
• In Abbott, Mr Craggs' mother could not prove he experienced subjective tinnitus, but she could corroborate that he complained of ringing after Kosovo and describe what she observed.
• In Abbott, Mr Lambie's wife gave evidence about the effect of his hearing loss on communication, driving, family life and social situations.
• A witness statement should, where practicable, be in the witness's own words and in the first person.
• It must distinguish things the witness personally knows from information or belief learned elsewhere — and give the source.
• A formal witness statement contains a statement of truth, backed by a contempt-of-court warning.
• Witnesses should not be given a shared script.
• Uncertainty is acceptable. "I do not remember" is better evidence than a confident invented answer.
• Witness evidence can fill parts of the history. It cannot turn missing medical or exposure evidence into something that never existed.

What is witness evidence?

A witness gives evidence about facts within their knowledge. In a military hearing-loss case, that might mean:

• "I served with him in the same vehicle crew."
• "I remember him complaining of ringing after returning from deployment."
• "For years I have had to repeat myself because he does not hear what I say."

Those are factual observations. They are different from expert conclusions such as "his audiogram proves military NIHL" or "the Army exposed him to 142 dB" — unless the witness genuinely has the relevant expertise and evidence to support such a statement.

What is a witness statement?

In civil litigation, factual evidence is commonly recorded in a witness statement. Practice Direction 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out how one should be written.

It must also distinguish between what the witness knows and what they have been told.

That distinction matters greatly in military claims. There is a difference between "I was standing beside him when we fired" and "he has told me that he fired frequently before I joined the unit". Both may appear in evidence — but they have different evidential foundations.

Why should a statement be in the witness's own words?

Because the evidence belongs to the witness. It should sound like the person who actually lived through the events.

A former infantryman does not need to write like a barrister. A spouse describing family life does not need to use medical terminology. Language that sounds unnaturally legal can make a statement less useful.

Less useful: *"The claimant sustained significant bilateral auditory impairment as a consequence of excessive noise exposure."*

More useful: *"When we watched television together, he kept turning it up. I often had to repeat what I had said."*

The second tells the reader what the witness actually observed.

What is the statement of truth?

A formal civil witness statement must be verified by a statement of truth, in prescribed words:

Who can give useful witness evidence?

Potential witnesses can include a spouse, partner, parent, adult child, sibling or friend; and on the service side a former colleague, commanding officer, instructor, vehicle crew member, fellow aircrew, engineer, shipmate or range colleague.

What can a spouse or partner prove?

A spouse or partner can often give particularly useful evidence about the functional effect of hearing loss. They may have observed:

• difficulty following conversation;
• frequent misunderstanding;
• asking people to repeat themselves;
• increased television volume;
• difficulty on the telephone;
• problems hearing children;
• difficulty in restaurants;
• withdrawal from social situations;
• sleep problems associated with tinnitus;
• increased reliance on visual cues;
• changes over many years.

That evidence explains the difference between an audiogram and living with hearing loss.

The Lambie example: what family evidence is good at

Abbott provides an unusually clear example. Mr Lambie's wife, Samantha Lambie, gave lay evidence about the impact of his hearing loss on their family.

The Court had extensive medical evidence about Mr Lambie's hearing. Mrs Lambie's evidence performed a different function: it described what that hearing loss actually did to family life.

Notice how specific it is. "Their children learning to mediate" is an observation no audiogram could produce, and no generic phrase like "communication difficulties" would convey.

Can a spouse prove that military noise caused the hearing loss?

Normally, no.

A spouse may be able to say "his hearing seemed much worse after he returned from service", and may be able to describe when they first noticed symptoms. But medical causation generally requires medical evidence.

A family member should not write "the Army caused his NIHL" unless they are merely explaining what they have been told — in which case, per PD32 18.2, the source needs to be clear. Their strongest evidence is usually factual observation.

The Craggs example: what a witness cannot prove

A family member cannot ordinarily experience somebody else's subjective tinnitus. Abbott makes that distinction with unusual precision.

The judgment records what she could say: that he complained of a static ringing noise after returning from Kosovo, that he often complained of tinnitus at night, that he reported struggling to lie in silence, and what she observed him doing because of it.

That evidence corroborated the history of the complaint, not the internal auditory sensation itself. It is stronger evidence precisely because it does not pretend the witness can observe something she cannot.

Uncertainty does not spoil a statement

This is worth stating plainly, because people assume the opposite. When the judgment recorded Mrs Condit's evidence about when the complaints began, it also recorded that she could not recall the precise date — and relied on her evidence anyway.

So useful phrases include:

• "I cannot remember the exact date."
• "I believe it was around 1997."
• "I cannot remember the model of ear defenders."
• "I remember the incident but not which exercise it occurred on."
• "I do not know how many rounds were fired."

What can parents and other relatives say?

A parent might remember that their son or daughter came home on leave and repeatedly complained "my ears are still ringing after firing". That may help place a complaint in time — but the witness should avoid reconstructing precise dates unless genuinely remembered.

Adult children may be able to describe growing up having to repeat themselves, a parent misunderstanding conversation, high television volume, difficulty hearing in the car, hearing-aid use or tinnitus-related sleep habits. But the evidence should be limited to periods they genuinely remember — a 25-year-old should not be asked for detailed evidence about events when they were two.

What can former military colleagues prove?

Former colleagues can be particularly useful on noise exposure. Depending on what they personally experienced, they may be able to describe:

• the claimant's role;
• unit duties;
• weapons used;
• exercises and firing routines;
• vehicle or aircraft environment;
• machinery, engine-room or flight-line work;
• training frequency;
• hearing-protection equipment;
• communication difficulties with protection;
• particular acoustic-trauma incidents.

This can help reconstruct the service environment where generic records tell only part of the story — our guide to military noise exposure explains what that environment involves.

The closer the witness's experience is to the claimant's actual history, the more useful it is. "I served in the same Challenger crew as him between 1992 and 1994" has a stronger factual foundation than "I served in another squadron of the same regiment several years later". The second witness may know something about general practices, but should not present those practices as personal knowledge of what happened to the claimant.

What different colleagues can cover

A weapons instructor who actually worked with the claimant might describe the type of weapon, range routine, approximate firing frequency, where personnel stood, whether ear protection was issued and how it was used, how often the instructor attended ranges, and any memorable incidents. They should not become an acoustic engineer — unless they genuinely measured the noise, they should not state "the weapon produced 145 dB at his ear".

Aircrew may describe the aircraft, crew position, flying hours, headset or helmet use, communication systems, whether particular duties involved substantial noise, and whether symptoms were complained about — distinguishing what they personally remember from what they know generally about the aircraft.

Naval colleagues may describe engine-room duties, machinery-space conditions, watch patterns, noise environment, communication, hearing protection and weapons or aviation exposure. Specificity matters: "we were marine engineers" is less useful than "we worked the same four-hour watch in that machinery space".

Armoured vehicle crew can be particularly useful because vehicle noise is continuous and shared. They might describe vehicle type, position, engine and track noise, headset use, communications, weapons firing and length of exercises — building a more realistic history than simply "tank crew".

Can colleagues give evidence about hearing protection?

Yes, where they genuinely remember it. Potential evidence includes what type was issued, when it was available, when it was worn, whether it fitted properly, whether instructions were given, whether it interfered with communication, and whether protection was routinely removed during particular tasks.

A witness can describe what happened — "I could not hear radio instructions with both plugs in", or "the defenders would not fit properly under the equipment we were using". But whether protection provided a particular level of acoustic attenuation is a technical question that may require records, measurements or expert evidence.

Can witnesses estimate how many rounds were fired?

Sometimes approximately. But fake precision is dangerous.

After twenty years, somebody may genuinely remember that range days were weekly, that firing happened on most exercises, or that they were an instructor for several years. They will not genuinely remember 37,250 rounds.

A useful statement might say: *"I cannot estimate the total number of rounds. During that posting we were on the range most weeks."* That conveys the evidence without pretending to possess an impossible memory.

Should several witnesses use the same wording?

No. Independent witnesses should not be made to sound like one person.

If three former soldiers produce statements containing identical paragraphs, identical unusual phrases and identical precise estimates, that can undermine rather than strengthen the evidence — and PD32 18.1 requires the statement, where practicable, to be in the witness's own words.

The purpose of drafting assistance is to record evidence clearly. It is not to manufacture uniform memories.

People naturally talk to each other. But when formal evidence is being prepared, witnesses should give their own recollection rather than agreeing a collective account. Avoid "we all decided it was every Wednesday" — better for each witness to explain separately what they remember, and for documents to establish dates where they can.

Two colleagues may remember things differently — one recalls "we normally used plugs", another "defenders were usually issued". That does not automatically mean somebody is lying. Differences should be investigated rather than edited away to make every statement identical.

What if a document refreshes the memory, or contradicts it?

A posting record may remind somebody that an exercise was in 1996, not 1995. That is not inherently problematic — but the witness should not pretend the date came from independent memory if it came from the document. The distinction between memory and information from records should remain clear.

Where a statement conflicts with an old document, investigate the conflict rather than hiding it. Possible explanations include that the witness remembered incorrectly, that the document is incomplete, that it records a general policy rather than what happened, or that circumstances differed on a particular occasion.

Abbott illustrates why this matters. Parts of Mr Craggs' account were challenged because documentary records did not always match his witness evidence — including occupational records about later offshore hearing protection which contradicted an absolute statement about what was "always" required. The Court took those inconsistencies into account.

Contemporaneous records are often very important because they were created close to the event. But there is no universal hierarchy saying every historic document is automatically correct — a medical record may omit a complaint, a service record may contain an administrative error, and a witness may genuinely remember an event documented nowhere. The evidence should be considered together.

Why contemporaneous evidence matters

Contemporaneous witness evidence relates closely in time to the event. A spouse remembering that the veteran came home in 2001 repeatedly complaining of ringing may be more useful on onset than somebody first hearing about the tinnitus in 2026.

The Craggs case demonstrates this: his mother's evidence was useful precisely because she recalled his complaints after Kosovo, close to the period in which he said the tinnitus began.

Old conversations can matter too — "the Army ruined my ears", or "ever since that explosion I have ringing". If genuinely remembered, those may be relevant to symptom history, attribution, limitation and causation. But do not manufacture memorable quotations after decades: if the witness remembers the substance rather than the exact words, say so.

Witness evidence can also be relevant to date of knowledge for limitation — a spouse might say "by 2010 he regularly told me his hearing had been damaged by weapons in the Army". But limitation is a legal question: the witness provides the underlying facts, not the conclusion. Our guide to military hearing loss time limits explains that test.

What witnesses cannot do

Colleagues may be able to help establish an acute acoustic trauma incident — "I was beside him when the weapon discharged unexpectedly", "immediately afterwards he said his left ear was ringing" — and may remember ear bleeding, obvious distress, temporary inability to hear or a medical referral. That can be useful where the medical record is incomplete. It does not replace a missing audiogram.

A colleague might describe behaviour suggesting hearing difficulty — asking for repetitions, not responding, turning the radio up, difficulty hearing commands. But diagnosis remains a clinical matter, and a colleague should not state "he had 30 dB of NIHL".

Nor can a colleague prove negligence by saying "the MOD was negligent". That is a legal conclusion. Their useful evidence lies underneath it: that no protection was available, that training took place in a particular way, that noise measurements were discussed, that complaints were made, that instructions were or were not given. A court can then assess what those facts mean legally.

Can family evidence affect damages?

Potentially. Family members can provide valuable evidence about loss of amenity and everyday impact — conversations becoming difficult, reduced social activity, relationship strain, family members taking over telephone calls, communication difficulties while travelling, inability to hear children.

That may help explain the real effect of an injury when damages are being assessed, and Abbott's treatment of Mrs Lambie's evidence is a strong example.

Work colleagues or managers may also describe misunderstanding instructions, difficulty in meetings, telephone problems, safety communication issues, changes to duties, reduced opportunities or support provided. But where a claimant seeks a financial loss such as loss of earnings or earning capacity, additional employment and expert evidence may also be required.

A family witness should not diagnose severity. "He left the television on at night because he said silence made the ringing more noticeable" is useful. "He has severe Grade III tinnitus" is an expert-style conclusion a family witness is unlikely to be qualified to give.

What makes a good family witness statement?

A useful structure might be:

1. Who you are — relationship to the claimant, how long you have known them, whether you lived together.
2. When you first noticed a problem — approximate period, what happened, what the claimant said.
3. Hearing difficulty — specific examples.
4. Tinnitus — what complaints you heard and what behaviours you observed.
5. Progression — how things changed over time.
6. Everyday effect — home, social life, telephone, television, sleep, relationships.
7. Hearing aids, if relevant — when they began, whether they seemed to help, difficulties with use.

Specific events are usually more useful than general adjectives.

What makes a good former-colleague statement?

A practical structure might be:

1. Your own service — service, rank, unit, relevant dates.
2. How you know the claimant — same crew, section, workshop, flight or posting.
3. Duties — what you actually did together.
4. Noise sources — weapons, vehicles, aircraft, machinery, blast.
5. Frequency and duration — only as accurately as genuinely remembered.
6. Hearing protection — what existed, when, use, practical problems.
7. Incidents — specific events personally remembered.
8. Symptoms observed, if any.

Avoid unnecessary legal or medical conclusions such as:

• "The MOD breached its duty."
• "He definitely has rM-NIHL."
• "The weapon produced exactly 155 dB."
• "His claim is worth £40,000."
• "The Matrix means liability is admitted."

Those propositions belong elsewhere.

Military terminology is fine if it is genuinely how the witness describes their service — but unexplained abbreviations may make a statement hard for a civilian court or medical expert to follow. "I was a B3 in X Sqn doing Y duties" may need a short explanation. The purpose is clarity, not stripping out authentic military language.

Should statements be chronological?

That works particularly well for long military histories. A sequence such as 1991 joined → 1993–1996 same armoured unit → 1997 weapons instructor → 1999 deployment is far easier to follow than jumping backwards and forwards through decades.

What about documents, photographs and old posts?

Documents can be identified and exhibited where appropriate — photographs, service documents, letters, diaries or contemporaneous messages. PD32 contains specific rules for exhibits: they should be verified and identified by the witness and remain separate from the statement, with numbering running consecutively.

A statement should clearly identify the document relied upon rather than silently incorporating material the witness never personally remembered.

Historical social-media posts about tinnitus after firing, hearing difficulty, an explosion or a medical appointment could become evidence if genuinely contemporaneous and relevant — but context and authenticity need considering, and the original material should never be edited or recreated.

Finding and approaching witnesses

Military disease cases often concern old exposure, so former colleagues can become relevant many years after discharge. The passage of time should be acknowledged, and a witness should never be pressured to claim a detailed memory they do not possess.

Possible routes to former colleagues include existing personal contacts, regimental associations, service groups, veterans' organisations and social networks. Be careful about privacy — a public post should not expose unnecessary medical information about the claimant. Something like "I am trying to contact anyone who served with me in X unit between 1994 and 1996" may be enough initially.

Can AI write a witness statement?

It can help with organising chronology, turning notes into clear headings and removing repetition.

It should not invent memories, round counts, dates, conversations, symptoms or technical exposure figures.

Watch for silent strengthening. Changing "I think" into "I remember" is a substantive change. So is turning "around 2001" into "March 2001". The witness must read the final statement carefully and correct anything stronger or more precise than their actual memory.

Can a witness be cross-examined?

Yes. A witness statement used at trial ordinarily stands as the witness's evidence in chief, and the witness can be questioned about it. The Civil Procedure Rules also provide mechanisms for cross-examination where written evidence is used at other hearings.

That is another reason the statement must be something the person can genuinely stand behind.

Does more witness evidence make a claim stronger?

No. Ten repetitive statements may add less than one strong witness with direct knowledge.

Useful evidence has relevance, personal knowledge, specificity and credibility. Quantity is not the same as quality.

And if nobody can provide witness evidence, a military hearing-loss claim does not automatically fail. Other evidence may include service records, audiograms, medical records, noise assessments, expert evidence and the claimant's own account. Witness evidence is one part of the picture — our guide to military medical records covers the documentary side.

Does the claimant need their own witness statement?

In litigated claims, the claimant's factual account is usually central. They are the person who can describe military history, noise exposure, symptoms, hearing protection, civilian exposure, tinnitus and functional effect.

But their account will then be tested against documents, other witnesses and medical evidence — Abbott demonstrates the importance of that process in both test cases.

If the claimant cannot remember, they should say so. Military service may have occurred decades ago, and there is no virtue in pretending to remember every date, exercise, round, vehicle or piece of equipment. A credible account distinguishes clear memory from approximation from no memory.

And if memory changes after seeing records, be transparent: *"I originally thought this occurred in 1997. My service record shows the posting began in 1998, so I accept my original recollection of the year was wrong."* That is very different from quietly rewriting the history.

A witness checklist

Before asking somebody for a formal statement, ask what this person personally observed.

For a family member:

• When did they first notice hearing problems?
• What specific examples do they remember?
• Did they hear complaints about tinnitus?
• What effect has the condition had?

For a service colleague:

• When did they serve together?
• What duties did they perform together?
• What noise did they personally encounter?
• What protection do they genuinely remember?
• Were there specific incidents?

Frequently asked questions