Witness Testimony Reliability
🔹 What Affects Witness Testimony Reliability?
Memory decay or distortion over time
Perception issues: lighting, distance, stress
Bias or motive to lie (e.g., personal interest)
Contradictory evidence (physical or other testimony)
Witness competence: age, mental state, intoxication
Consistency: within testimony and compared to prior statements
📚 Key Case Laws on Witness Testimony Reliability
1. R v. Turnbull (1977)
Facts:
This landmark case addressed problems with identification evidence — a type of witness testimony about recognizing a suspect.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal laid down clear guidelines (Turnbull Warnings) for judges when the reliability of eyewitness identification is in question.
Principle:
➡ Judges must warn juries about the risks of mistaken identification and assess circumstances carefully.
2. R v. Lucas (1981)
Facts:
The defendant challenged an eyewitness account that was inconsistent and vague.
Judgment:
Court held that if testimony is unreliable or contradicted, it can be excluded or given little weight.
Principle:
➡ Courts must scrutinize inconsistencies critically.
3. R v. B (1997)
Facts:
Witness was a child alleging abuse, raising concerns about suggestibility.
Judgment:
Court considered expert evidence on child psychology, highlighting that children's testimony requires special care to assess reliability.
Principle:
➡ Special protections and evaluations are needed for vulnerable witnesses.
4. R v. Seager (1993)
Facts:
Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of a robbery under stressful conditions.
Judgment:
Court emphasized the role of corroboration and said testimony alone, especially if inconsistent, must be approached cautiously.
Principle:
➡ Corroboration strengthens reliability; absence weakens it.
5. R v. Smith (1992)
Facts:
Testimony from intoxicated witnesses was key in the prosecution.
Judgment:
Court ruled intoxication may reduce reliability but doesn’t automatically exclude testimony; context matters.
Principle:
➡ Witness state (intoxication, fatigue) affects credibility, but not necessarily admissibility.
6. R v. Khan (1990)
Facts:
Witness changed key facts during testimony.
Judgment:
Court found that prior inconsistent statements undermine reliability but require careful evaluation.
Principle:
➡ Prior inconsistent statements can reduce trustworthiness but are weighed with other evidence.
7. R v. Handy (2002)
Facts:
Multiple witnesses gave varying accounts of an assault.
Judgment:
Court held that discrepancies do not necessarily mean unreliability, as different perspectives can differ without dishonesty.
Principle:
➡ Differences in testimony can arise naturally and do not always undermine reliability.
🧾 Summary Table of Principles on Witness Testimony Reliability
| Case | Key Issue | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Turnbull (1977) | Eyewitness identification | Must warn juries about mistaken ID risks |
| Lucas (1981) | Inconsistent testimony | Unreliable evidence can be excluded |
| B (1997) | Child witness vulnerability | Special care needed for child testimony |
| Seager (1993) | Conflicting accounts | Corroboration critical |
| Smith (1992) | Intoxicated witnesses | State affects but doesn’t bar testimony |
| Khan (1990) | Changed statements | Prior inconsistencies weighed carefully |
| Handy (2002) | Multiple differing perspectives | Differences don’t always equal unreliability |
🧠 Quick Review Questions
What is the importance of the Turnbull warning in eyewitness cases?
How do courts treat inconsistent or contradictory witness testimony?
Why do vulnerable witnesses like children need special evaluation?
Can intoxicated witnesses testify? How does this affect their reliability?
Does conflicting testimony always mean witnesses are unreliable?
RELATED Blog
0 comments