Differences between examination-in-chief and cross-examination
With examination in chief the witness is allowed to tell their side of the story. In cross-examination you do not want the witness to tell the story. You indicate the point you wish to make and put it to the witness. Leading questions therefore are used in cross-examination. Leading questions provide for effective cross-examination because the facts are supplied by the advocate instead of the witness and the advocate has most of the control in order to get to the point they want to make. During cross-examination you do not want a witness to tell their story, you want them to verify the particular matters that you put to them.
Updated 12 March 2026
The legal principles described in this article remain broadly accurate as statements of general English evidence and advocacy law. The distinction between examination-in-chief (where leading questions are not permitted on material matters) and cross-examination (where leading questions are permitted and commonly used) is a well-established common law rule, confirmed in practice and procedure across criminal and civil proceedings. No statutory changes have materially altered these foundational principles. However, readers should note that the article is a simplified overview and omits several important nuances: for example, the rule against leading questions in examination-in-chief has recognised exceptions (such as introductory or undisputed matters); cross-examination is also subject to important statutory restrictions, notably under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which restricts the cross-examination of complainants in sexual offence cases and prohibits certain defendants from personally cross-examining witnesses; and in civil proceedings the Civil Procedure Rules govern witness evidence in ways the article does not address. Students should consult up-to-date textbooks and primary sources for a fuller picture.
