I gave evidence in a criminal court recently about one of my in-patients, with the patient watching from the dock. When the clerk asked me, ‘Do you have a religion?’, I answered ‘No’ and was given the words to read to make a solemn affirmation (‘I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence which I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’), rather than taking the oath (‘I swear by Almighty God that the evidence… ’) ^{Footnote a} on a religious text. So far in my career, I have not chosen to share my lack of religious belief with any of my patients. This patient had recently had delusions with religious content. Knowing that I do not have a religion might have all sorts of implications for our therapeutic relationship. Also, the patient may tell the other patients on my ward, and the staff, with further potential implications for therapeutic and professional relationships.

Colleagues giving evidence in a civil or criminal court in the presence of one of their patients may wish to avoid such a disclosure. Although there is no way of giving oral evidence without making an affirmation or taking an oath (without risking contempt of court), I think if I was in a similar situation again I would let the clerk know in advance that I would like to make the affirmation. The clerk would then have no need to ask me about my religion and thus draw attention to my atheism in court.

This incident also made me wonder whether it is right that witnesses have to reveal their religion in open court before they can give evidence. Witnesses often do not have a choice whether to give evidence. ‘Religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature’ are considered sensitive personal data in the Data Protection Act 1998 because their handling requires particular care, and cannot be ‘processed’ without special conditions being met. I cannot find any evidence whether rates of lying in court differ when the affirmation or the oath is used; in my opinion it is unlikely to make any difference. Perhaps the current oath system involves an unnecessary and unfair forced disclosure on the part of witnesses.