4.4 – Complainant’s Motive to Lie[1]

4.4.3 - Charge: Complainant’s Motive to Lie - No Specific Motive to Lie

[This charge should be used if:

· The defence has not alleged that the complainant had a specific motive to lie;

· The issue of why the complainant would lie has been raised; and

· A Palmer direction is necessary (see the Bench Notes for guidance)]

In this case, [insert relevant evidence and/or arguments in which it was suggested or implied that the complainant had no motive to lie]. The [suggestion/implication] is that NOC has no motive to lie about these matters.

I must warn you that it is irrelevant that NOA can not tell you why the complainant might be lying. The accused does not need to provide such a motive, and it is unfair to expect him/her to do so.

As I have told you, at all times it is for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove anything – including why the complainant may be making up the allegations against him/her.

It is therefore important that you do not reason that because the accused cannot provide a reason why NOC is lying in this case, s/he must be telling the truth. There are many possible reasons why a person might lie. Just because the accused cannot identify the precise reason in this case does not mean there is not one.

Similarly, you must not reason that because NOA cannot provide a motive for NOC lying, that NOC’s evidence is therefore more credible. You must assess NOC’s credibility on the basis of his/her testimony, and consideration of the other evidence in this case – not on the basis of whether or not NOA can tell you why s/he might be lying.

It is also important that you do not speculate about any motives NOC may have for lying. You must base your decision solely on the evidence you have heard before you in court, not on speculation. You must determine on the basis of that evidence alone whether the prosecution have proved that the complainant is telling the truth, and have established NOA’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1

[1] This document was last updated on 1 July 2013.