Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Evidence Act 2006

Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality - Veracity and propensity - Evidence of veracity

37: Veracity rules

You could also call this:

"Talking about someone's honesty in court: when it's allowed and how it works"

Illustration for Evidence Act 2006

When you are in a court case, you can only talk about someone's honesty if it really helps to understand if they are telling the truth. You must make sure the information is very helpful in figuring out if the person is honest. In a criminal case, you also have to follow what section 38 or section 39 says.

The Judge decides if the information is helpful by looking at things like if the person has lied before when they had to tell the truth. They also consider if the person has been convicted of crimes that show they might not be honest. The Judge thinks about if the person has said different things before, if they are biased, or if they have a reason to lie.

If you call someone as a witness, you can't question their honesty unless the Judge says they are hostile. But you can give evidence that contradicts what the witness says. Veracity means being honest and not lying, it is about a person's tendency to tell the truth.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM393624.

Topics:
Crime and justice > Courts and legal help
Previous

36: Application of subpart to evidence of veracity and propensity, or

"When the law doesn't apply to evidence about someone's honesty in court cases."

Next

38: Evidence of defendant’s veracity, or

"Can the court talk about how honest you are if you're the defendant?"

Part 2Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality
Veracity and propensity: Evidence of veracity

37Veracity rules

  1. A party may not offer evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding about a person’s veracity unless the evidence is substantially helpful in assessing that person’s veracity.

  2. In a criminal proceeding, evidence about a defendant’s veracity must also comply with section 38 or, as the case requires, section 39.

  3. In deciding, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether or not evidence proposed to be offered about the veracity of a person is substantially helpful, the Judge may consider, among any other matters, whether the proposed evidence tends to show 1 or more of the following matters:

  4. lack of veracity on the part of the person when under a legal obligation to tell the truth (for example, in an earlier proceeding or in a signed declaration):
    1. that the person has been convicted of 1 or more offences that indicate a propensity for a lack of veracity:
      1. any previous inconsistent statements made by the person:
        1. bias on the part of the person:
          1. a motive on the part of the person to be untruthful.

            1. A party who calls a witness—

            2. may not offer evidence to challenge that witness’s veracity unless the Judge determines the witness to be hostile; but
              1. may offer evidence as to the facts in issue contrary to the evidence of that witness.

                1. For the purposes of this Act, veracity means the disposition of a person to refrain from lying.

                Notes
                • Section 37(3)(b): replaced, on , by section 12(1) of the Evidence Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 44).
                • Section 37(5): replaced, on , by section 12(2) of the Evidence Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 44).