It suggests that a Court may, in the proper circumstances, consider the motivation of an accused to lie in testimony and that such consideration does not violate the presumption of innocence.
A summary follows:
C, a 13-year-old girl, and a friend were lured from a mall and driven to an isolated golf course where C was sexually assaulted and beaten to death. The five persons involved, including three youths, were charged with kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and first-degree murder. The two adults, B and L — the accused in this case — were tried together. C's friend and all charged persons except for B testified giving various accounts. L admitted at trial that he had been present when the crimes occurred but denied participating in any of them. His position was that the other witnesses' testimony inculpating him had been fabricated for reasons of "jealousy, a desire for revenge, and a desire to avoid responsibility for their own actions".
Credibility of the witnesses, including L, was of central importance in the trial.
The trial judge rejected L's testimony, in part, on the basis of his motive to lie because of his interest in securing an acquittal and, based on the evidence he did believe, convicted L on all charges.
In the Court of Appeal, the majority held that the trial judge's reference to L's "very great motive to be untruthful" presumed his guilt and so revealed a fatal flaw which necessitated a new trial. The dissenting judge was of the opinion that the impugned passage, when read in context, did not constitute error.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
The fact that a witness has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings is, as a matter of common sense, a relevant factor, among others, to take into account when assessing the credibility of the witness's testimony. This common sense proposition applies to an accused person who testifies in his or her defence. The fact that the witness is the accused, however, raises specific concern.
Any assumption that an accused will lie to secure his or her acquittal, simply because of his status as an accused, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence as an innocent person, presumably, need only tell the truth to achieve this outcome. In most cases, considering the accused's motive to lie in assessing his or her credibility as a witness is a factor that is simply unhelpful and, as a general rule, triers of fact would be well advised to avoid that path all together, lest they unwittingly err by making the impermissible assumption.
Whether it is appropriate for the trier of fact to consider that the accused may have a motive to lie in order to secure an acquittal will depend on the evidence and the issues raised at trial. A trial judge does not commit an error of law simply by making reference to or taking account of an accused's motive to lie. A trial judge's consideration of an accused's motivation to be untruthful must be examined within the context of the trial and the reasons as a whole. The determining question is whether the trial judge's comments undermined the presumption of innocence.
In this case, while the language used by the trial judge in referring to the accused's motive to lie may give cause for concern when viewed in isolation, the reasons, read in their entirety and in the light of the context of the trial as a whole, reveal that the trial judge properly assessed and weighed the evidence of all the witnesses, including L, without undermining the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof. The trial judge's reasons make it clear that he correctly instructed himself as to the applicable principles. He then faithfully followed these principles in analysing the evidence. The reasons were responsive to the issues raised in this joint trial, where the testimony of every principal witness was challenged by L on the ground that he or she had a motive to fabricate the evidence against him.
Therefore, it was a crucial and unavoidable aspect of determining the credibility issues that the trial judge consider L's own motives.
On this crucial question, the trial judge did not proceed on the basis of the impermissible assumption that the accused, because of his status as an accused, would lie to secure an acquittal.
No comments:
Post a Comment