Relationship Analyser — Evidence Edge

Sample matter · fictional brief

R v Callaghan & Anor

Court: Downing Centre Local Court
Next date: Tue 12 Aug 2026 — mention (joint)
Charges: AOABH + affray (joint); damage property (A); stalk/intimidate (B)
2 accused · 5 civ · 6 police · 2 counsel · 2 solicitors
1 privilege wall (co-accused)
Sample brief of evidence
Witness statements (fictional)

Relationship graph

Hardcoded sample

Relationship inventory

Always shown

Who is linked to whom, relationship type, and source note for the selected person.

Linked person	Relationship type	Source / note
Select a person to see their relationship inventory.

Optional contact posture Warnings Risks Advantages Organisational analysis only — not legal or ethical advice.

Warnings Blocked / Caution contact

Relationship analysis

Select anyone below (or on the Map tab). Inventory and optional posture panels use the same sample matrix — organisational aid only.

Relationship inventory

Linked person	Relationship type	Source / note
Select a person to see their relationship inventory.

Optional contact posture Warnings Risks Advantages

Warnings

What this mock demonstrates

Relationship Analyser (formerly Conflict Map) is a junior-facing organisational aid for multi-accused matters: identify known relationships between parties, optionally surface contact warnings / organisational risks and advantages, and keep privilege walls visible before anyone picks up the phone.

Sample matter R v Callaghan & Anor aligned to the fictional brief of evidence (2 accused, 5 civilian witnesses, 6 police witnesses, 2 defence counsel, 2 defence solicitors)
Always-on relationship inventory (who ↔ whom, type, source note)
Optional panels: Warnings (Blocked / Caution), Risks, Advantages
Fictional witness statements with planted discrepancies for a future Contradiction Mapper sibling module
Dashed red edges = privilege walls or hard blocks; amber = caution; green = clear organisational channel

Relationship / organisational aid only — not legal or ethical advice, and not a determination of conflict of interest. Outputs depend entirely on data you enter. Always apply the Legal Profession Uniform Law, Barristers / Solicitors Rules, and your chambers or firm protocols.

Looking for factual tensions inside statements vs ERISP vs facts sheet? Use Brief Cross-Check today; a dedicated Contradiction Mapper is planned as a sibling module (see RELATIONSHIP-ANALYSER.md).