Witness interview transcript redaction is the removal of personal data from an informal Q&A record. It maps to CPR 5.4C and the DPA 2018 if disclosed. anonym.plus runs on your device, so counsel's work-product stays protected.
When this applies
A solicitor questions a person and keeps a record. To share it with co-counsel or disclose an excerpt, the names and numbers must be hidden first.
How anonym.plus handles it
- Open the file in anonym.plus on your device.
- The tool flags the speaker and any named third parties.
- Dates, addresses, and contacts get flagged.
- Swap or black out the confirmed identifiers.
- Save the clean copy on your device.
What you need to provide
- The transcript (PDF, DOCX, or TXT).
- An operator; Replace keeps the account readable.
- Optional name map to match the case record.
PII entity types detected
| Category | anonym.plus entity type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Names | PERSON | the speaker → [WITNESS] |
| Names | PERSON | third party → [THIRD_PARTY] |
| Contact | PHONE_NUMBER | mobile number → [PHONE] |
| Dates | DATE_TIME | session date → [DATE] |
| Location | LOCATION | address → [ADDRESS] |
| Identifiers | UK_NINO | NINO → [NINO] |
Compliance achieved
- Keeps interview notes inside the litigation-privilege boundary the Court of Appeal drew in Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006.
- Applies the dominant-purpose test from Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521 to the note you keep, not only to the copy you share.
- Supports the confidentiality duty in para. 6.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs — client affairs stay confidential, so there is no upload step.
- Feeds a witness summary under CPR 32.9 where a signed statement cannot be obtained, with third-party identifiers already stripped.
- On-device AES-256-GCM guards the working files.
Anonymise witness interview transcripts offline — see plans & start free →
Limitations & cautions
Informal sessions ramble and name people in passing. Check that every third party is flagged. The tool catches named items but cannot judge when a story clue alone points to one person.
Frequently asked questions
Is such a record privileged?
Often, but not always. Litigation privilege turns on the dominant-purpose test in Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521, and Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 shows how closely interview notes are examined. Local processing keeps the note off any server while you decide.
Are third parties removed too?
Yes. Anyone named in the session can be flagged and swapped, not just the speaker.
Will the account still read well?
Yes. The Replace operator swaps each ID for a steady label, so the account still flows.