Evidence Act 2006

Trial process - Corroboration, judicial directions, and judicial warnings

122: Judicial directions about evidence which may be unreliable

You could also call this:

"The Judge warns the jury to be careful with evidence that might not be true."

In a trial with a jury, the Judge might think some evidence is not totally reliable. You need to be careful when deciding if you believe this evidence or how important it is. The Judge can warn the jury to be cautious when considering this kind of evidence.

The Judge has to think about warning the jury when they hear certain types of evidence, like hearsay or evidence from someone who might be lying. They also have to consider warnings when the only evidence against the defendant is a statement they made, or if the evidence is about something that happened a long time ago.

If someone asks the Judge to give a warning, the Judge does not have to do it if they think it might make the evidence seem more important than it is, or if they have another good reason not to. The Judge can use their own words when giving the warning, they do not have to use a special phrase.

When there is no jury, the Judge still has to be careful when relying on evidence that might not be reliable to convict someone. This rule does not change any other power the Judge has to warn or inform the jury.

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 It might be out of date or be missing some parts.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 29 June 2025

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM393961.

Topics:

Crime and justice > Courts and legal helpCrime and justice > Criminal law

121: Corroboration, or

"When is other evidence needed to back up the main evidence in a court case?"

123: Judicial directions about certain ways of offering evidence, or

"The Judge explains rules to the jury when evidence is given in an unusual way."

Part 3Trial process
Corroboration, judicial directions, and judicial warnings

122Judicial directions about evidence which may be unreliable

If, in a criminal proceeding tried with a jury, the Judge is of the opinion that any evidence given in that proceeding that is admissible may nevertheless be unreliable, the Judge may warn the jury of the need for caution in deciding—
whether to accept the evidence:
the weight to be given to the evidence.

In a criminal proceeding tried with a jury the Judge must consider whether to give a warning under subsection (1) whenever the following evidence is given:
hearsay evidence:
evidence of a statement by the defendant, if that evidence is the only evidence implicating the defendant:
evidence given by a witness who may have a motive to give false evidence that is prejudicial to a defendant:
evidence of a statement by the defendant to another person made while both the defendant and the other person were detained in prison, a Police station, or another place of detention:
evidence about the conduct of the defendant if that conduct is alleged to have occurred more than 10 years previously.

In a criminal proceeding tried with a jury, a party may request the Judge to give a warning under subsection (1) but the Judge need not comply with that request—
if the Judge is of the opinion that to do so might unnecessarily emphasise evidence; or
if the Judge is of the opinion that there is any other good reason not to comply with the request.

It is not necessary for a Judge to use a particular form of words in giving the warning.
If there is no jury, the Judge must bear in mind the need for caution before convicting a defendant in reliance on evidence of a kind that may be unreliable.
This section does not affect any other power of the Judge to warn or inform the jury.