In criminal cases, the question of credibility is central to determining whether an accused person is guilty or innocent. A judge or magistrate must assess the reliability and truthfulness of witnesses, including the defendant, to make a fair and just decision. The evaluation of credibility can be a complex process, as it involves interpreting a range of factors that may influence a witness’s testimony. This blog will summarise the general criteria that a magistrate or judge in Western Australia will refer to when making findings about credibility in a criminal case.

1. Consistency of Testimony

One of the first things a judge or magistrate will consider is the consistency of a witness’s testimony. If a witness provides a consistent account of the events in question across different settings, such as in court, during police interviews, or in earlier statements, this strengthens their credibility.

• Internal Consistency: A witness’s account should be internally consistent, meaning their story should not contradict itself.
• External Consistency: The testimony should align with other evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, provided those accounts are credible.

However, minor inconsistencies are not necessarily fatal to a witness’s credibility. It is common for witnesses to make small errors or forget certain details, especially if the events occurred a long time ago. The court will distinguish between genuine lapses in memory and contradictions that suggest a fabrication or distortion of the truth.

2. Corroboration of Evidence

Corroboration refers to additional evidence or testimony that supports a witness’s account. While a witness’s credibility does not solely depend on corroborating evidence, the presence of corroborating evidence can significantly strengthen the reliability of their testimony.

• Physical Evidence: The court will look for physical evidence (such as forensic evidence, photographs, or documents) that supports or contradicts the witness’s version of events.
• Witness Corroboration: Other credible witnesses who provide similar accounts of the events in question can also strengthen a particular witness’s credibility.

A lack of corroboration does not automatically mean a witness is not credible, but it will be carefully considered by the court, especially in cases involving serious charges like sexual assault or violent crimes.

3. Motive to Lie

Judges and magistrates will assess whether a witness has any motive to lie or distort the truth. This is particularly relevant in cases where the witness may have personal interests at stake, such as:

• Bias or Prejudice: A witness may be biased due to personal relationships, prior grievances, or a desire to protect themselves or others.
• Financial or Legal Interests: A witness may have an incentive to lie if doing so would benefit them financially (e.g., in civil claims arising from criminal events) or legally (e.g., to avoid prosecution or gain a lighter sentence).
• Hostility: A witness with a history of hostility toward the accused may have a motive to exaggerate or fabricate parts of their testimony.

The court will scrutinise any potential conflicts of interest that might compromise a witness’s objectivity.

4. Demeanor and Presentation in Court

A judge or magistrate will also consider the demeanor of the witness while they are giving evidence. While a witness’s nervousness or discomfort is not necessarily an indication of dishonesty, certain aspects of their behaviour may raise concerns about credibility:

• Body Language: The way a witness presents themselves in the witness box—such as avoiding eye contact, fidgeting, or showing signs of distress—may be noted by the court. However, these factors must be considered with caution, as some individuals may exhibit anxiety without any intention to deceive.
• Inconsistencies in Behaviour: A witness who exhibits signs of inconsistency in their behaviour (e.g., appearing calm when recounting a traumatic event) may be considered less credible, as it could suggest a lack of sincerity.
• Clarity and Confidence: A clear and confident delivery of testimony, while not necessarily indicative of truth, can signal that the witness is comfortable with their account. However, excessive certainty may also raise doubts, especially in cases where complex or unclear events are being described.

5. Plausibility of Testimony

Judges and magistrates will assess whether the witness’s testimony is plausible in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. A credible witness’s account should make sense when considered against the backdrop of the evidence presented during the trial.

• Common Sense and Logic: A judge or magistrate will evaluate whether the witness’s version of events is logical and consistent with their understanding of human behaviour or the context in which the events occurred.
• Expert Testimony: In some cases, expert witnesses (e.g., psychologists, medical professionals) may be called to provide insight into the credibility of other witnesses’ testimony, particularly in cases involving trauma, memory, or mental health issues.

An implausible or far-fetched story may undermine a witness’s credibility, even if they are being truthful. The court will apply its collective knowledge and experience to determine whether a witness’s testimony fits within the realm of possibility.

6. Prior Criminal Record or History of Dishonesty

A history of dishonesty or criminal activity can also impact an accused’s credibility, especially if they have a record of committing crimes of dishonesty, such as fraud, theft, or perjury.

• Reputation for Honesty: If a witness has previously been caught lying or providing false statements, this could weaken their credibility in the current case.
• Criminal Convictions: While prior criminal convictions are not automatically disqualifying, a history of relevant offences (e.g., crimes involving deception) can sometimes cause a judge or magistrate to view the testimony with suspicion.

In some cases, a defendant may also have the opportunity to challenge the credibility of a witness based on their past actions.

7. Contradictions Between the Accused and the Prosecution

In criminal cases, the accused and the prosecution often present conflicting versions of the events. When assessing credibility, the judge or magistrate will consider:

• The Accused’s Testimony: If the accused offers a version of events that directly contradicts the prosecution’s case, the judge or magistrate will scrutinise the accused’s credibility, considering factors like their motives, behaviour, and whether their testimony aligns with other evidence.
• The Prosecution’s Case: Similarly, the prosecution’s case will be assessed for credibility, particularly if their witnesses provide inconsistent or contradictory evidence.

Ultimately, the judge or magistrate must weigh the credibility of both sides to determine which account is most persuasive.

Conclusion

In criminal trials, credibility plays a critical role in shaping the outcome of the case. Judges and magistrates in Western Australia refer to a variety of criteria when assessing the reliability and truthfulness of witnesses, including the consistency of their testimony, any corroborating evidence, the presence of a motive to lie, their demeanour in court, and the plausibility of their account. Additionally, a witness’s past conduct, including prior criminal history, may influence how their testimony is regarded.

A thorough and fair evaluation of all these factors helps ensure that the court makes just and informed decisions based on the evidence at hand. If you’re involved in a criminal case, understanding how credibility is assessed can provide insight into the legal process and how witnesses’ testimonies will be evaluated.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, or is being called as a witness and are unsure of your legal rights and options, contact our office today to discuss how we can best assist you through this process.