Evidence Act 2006

Trial process - Corroboration, judicial directions, and judicial warnings

124: Judicial warnings about lies

You could also call this:

"When you might have lied in court, the Judge helps the jury understand what it means"

If you are in a criminal trial and it seems like you have lied, the Judge will consider this. The Judge does not have to tell the jury what to think about your lie. You might have lied for a reason, and this does not necessarily mean you are guilty.

If the Judge thinks the jury might focus too much on your lie, they will warn the jury. The Judge will remind the jury that they must be sure you lied before using that information. The Judge will also tell the jury that people lie for many reasons and that lying does not always mean you are guilty.

In a trial without a jury, the Judge will think about the same things when deciding how important your lie is. The Judge will consider why you might have lied and whether it means you are guilty. The Judge has to be careful when using evidence of a lie to decide if you are guilty.

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 It might be out of date or be missing some parts.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=DLM393963.

Topics:

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

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."

125: Judicial directions about children’s evidence, or

"Courts must treat evidence from children fairly and not assume it's untrue just because they're kids."

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

124Judicial warnings about lies

This section applies if evidence offered in a criminal proceeding suggests that a defendant has lied either before or during the proceeding.
If evidence of a defendant’s lie is offered in a criminal proceeding tried with a jury, the Judge is not obliged to give a specific direction as to what inference the jury may draw from that evidence.
Despite subsection (2), if, in a criminal proceeding tried with a jury, the Judge is of the opinion that the jury may place undue weight on evidence of a defendant’s lie, or if the defendant so requests, the Judge must warn the jury that—
the jury must be satisfied before using the evidence that the defendant did lie; and
people lie for various reasons; and
the jury should not necessarily conclude that, just because the defendant lied, the defendant is guilty of the offence for which the defendant is being tried.

In a criminal proceeding tried without a jury, the Judge must have regard to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) before placing any weight on evidence of a defendant’s lie.