I’d be wary of including anything about being liable for prosecution. This is usually added to statements made to the police or enforcement authorities and there is specific statutory provision for this. If the case goes to court (civil or criminal) and the person is found to have lied then they may be prosecuted but that is something for the authorities not for employers- we are not the H&S police. Just use the first bit of the statement upto “This statement (consisting of ... pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge” and leave it at that. By Section 9 statements I take it that you mean those under Criminal Justice Act 1967 which are again usually statements taken by the police and other statutory bodies, for use in criminal proceedings.

As lifted straight from my own form; Interviewee declaration; “I declare, that to the best of my knowledge, the attached statement is a true and accurate account of the events that I witnessed in connection with the event for which I have been asked to make this statement”.

“This statement (consisting of ... pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.” No legal basis unless taken as a sworn affidavit.

In my experience adopting such a requirement to make such a formal declaration will serve to make people both defensive and uncooperative. I have managed for a good many years without resorting to such a formal approach! I wonder if such an approach might ultimatelyprove to be counter productive?

How about a simple "I confirm that the statement above/below is an accurate statement of events to my recollection" Bob

If you don't trust your valued employees to tell the truth, will them signing a bit of paper really make the slightest difference? If they are the sole witness to an event then your guess is as good as mine as to what the "truth" is If 20 people saw it then again I expect there will be 20 versions of the truth.

I'm baffled as to why you want people to sign a statement of truth. The declaration you have given as used by the HSE (and others) on a formal statement given to them whilst they investigate. The HSE have powers to compel someone to give them a statement and to use those statements as evidence in court. You have no powers to compel someone to talk to you or to prosecute them. What is it you're trying to achieve? To investigate the cause of an accident? Or to prevent the root cause being unearthed by threatening to have them in court if they don't tell you everything? If the HSE / LA want to prosecute they will do their own investigation and to be honest your witness statements won't give half the informatioin they are looking for anyway. They'll want to do statements themselves following legal process. If it's a civil claim I'm sure the insurers will do what they need to do. Take witness statements because they help you establish a chain of events. Don't use those statements to threaten your employees with legal action. And as others have said 'truth' is a very subjective matter. Personally I'd refuse to talk to you if you wanted me to sign that or ask for a solicitor to be in attendance.

I have managed for many years without resorting to such steps, and don't recall feeling or being disadvantaged in having not done so. I personally feel that many witnesses will feel threatened by such an approach and that it will only serve to alienate them, you or both.

S9 declaration has no place in an in-house investigation. Its purpose is for criminal prosecution such that the statement can be read in Court without the interviewee being present. However, should this evidence subsequently prove to be false the individual could face prosecution proceedings themselves. In my past life, I successfully prosecuted an accident witness for providing me with an untrue S9 statement (and in the presence of his solicitor)! For in-house statements, a signature and date are sufficient. However, I do believe that HSWA S7 does give company safety teams the power to require a statement from an employee who witnessed the accident or was working in the area of the accident. S7 places a duty upon an employee while at work to cooperate with his employer so far as is necessary to enable any duty or requirement imposed on his employer. HSE and LA would expect an in-house investigation to have been made of a reportable accident by a company with an in-house safety team. Even if such a statement were to say no more than "I saw nought". Should the Enforcing Authority require further information may then take a S9 statement from the individual(s) for themselves.

Rachel - There are two possibilities here. If the accident is likely to result in criminal prosecution, which is usually very unlikely, (and if a criminal prosecution is under way, best leave evidence gathering to your solicitors), then I suggest you look at the Criminal Procedure Rules for guidance. As criminal matters are not my forte I will say no more on this point. However, much more probably, your company will face a civil claim for damages. By the time your insurers, or their solicitors get on the scene, memories will have faded well so taking statements early on is well worth the time and effort. In such circumstances, the statements must be in accordance with Practice Direction 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Statement of Truth are dealt with in paragraphs 20.1 and 20.2. The correct wording being ‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true’. If you do intend taking your own witness statements I also recommend paying attention to the requirements of paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2. If anyone is wondering why it is necessary to go to these lengths at an early stage after an accident, there are several reasons but ask yourself how will you defend your case if your star witness(s) have left your employ, moved to Australia, died etc.? A statement without declaration of truth can be ruled inadmissible as evidence so get it right first time.