This is a sequel to my last column about how judges arrive at the truth. I had shared judicial commentary from a case decided by our Court of Appeal in 1952 and promised to share additional wisdom from much more recent authorities.

It害羞草研究所檚 not so easy to arrive at the truth in the face of 害羞草研究所渜uick-witted, experienced and confident witnesses, and of those shrewd persons adept in the half-lie and of long and successful experience in combining skillful exaggeration with partial suppression of the truth害羞草研究所� (quoting from the 1952 case).

And even more difficult when a witness is honestly mistaken about something he or she sincerely believes to be true.

Noting a lack of divine insight into the hearts and minds of witnesses, the half-century old solution was to assess the testimony害羞草研究所檚 fit with what害羞草研究所檚 most likely to be true given the circumstances.

In her decision released February 19, 2019, ( 害羞草研究所� , Madam Justice Fleming goes further to list other factors.

Her list starts with: 害羞草研究所淭he capacity and opportunity of the witness to observe the events at issue害羞草研究所�.

Next: 害羞草研究所淗is or her ability to remember those events害羞草研究所�.

A third: 害羞草研究所淭he ability of the witness to resist being influenced by his or her interest in recalling those events害羞草研究所�.

Fourth: 害羞草研究所淲hether the witness害羞草研究所檚 evidence harmonizes with or is contradicted by other evidence, particularly independent or undisputed evidence害羞草研究所�.

Fifth: 害羞草研究所淲hether his or her evidence seems unreasonable, improbable or unlikely, bearing in mind the probabilities affecting the case害羞草研究所�.

And finally: 害羞草研究所淭he witness害羞草研究所檚 demeanour, meaning the way he or she presents while testifying害羞草研究所�.

Madam Justice Fleming specifically noted the danger of relying wholly on that final factor: 害羞草研究所淩egarding the last factor, Chorny and other authorities have discussed the dangers of relying wholly upon demeanour to determine credibility, recognizing the risk of preferring the testimony of the better actor, and conversely, misinterpreting an honest witness害羞草研究所檚 poor presentation as deceptive.害羞草研究所�

In another recent decision, 害羞草研究所�, this one decided by Madam Justice Devlin, a couple additional factors were noted.

One: 害羞草研究所淲hether the witness changes their testimony in direct and cross-examination害羞草研究所�. And another: 害羞草研究所淲hether a witness has a motive to lie害羞草研究所�.

You might reasonably be coming to the conclusion that judges are cynical! To the contrary, Madam Justice Devlin noted an important starting point: 害羞草研究所淭he starting point in a credibility assessment is to presume truthfulness, but this presumption may be displaced害羞草研究所�.

Judges have a lot to consider when arriving at the truth!

Might we learn from them? I suggest that the conscious consideration of each of these factors would help each of us evaluate the truth of messages we are presented with in our day to day lives.

Missed last week害羞草研究所檚 column?

Support while recovering from serious injury

Like us on Facebook and follow us on .