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.

Itsa国际传媒檚 not so easy to arrive at the truth in the face of sa国际传媒渜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 truthsa国际传媒� (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 testimonysa国际传媒檚 fit with whatsa国际传媒檚 most likely to be true given the circumstances.

In her decision released February 19, 2019, ( sa国际传媒� , Madam Justice Fleming goes further to list other factors.

Her list starts with: sa国际传媒淭he capacity and opportunity of the witness to observe the events at issuesa国际传媒�.

Next: sa国际传媒淗is or her ability to remember those eventssa国际传媒�.

A third: sa国际传媒淭he ability of the witness to resist being influenced by his or her interest in recalling those eventssa国际传媒�.

Fourth: sa国际传媒淲hether the witnesssa国际传媒檚 evidence harmonizes with or is contradicted by other evidence, particularly independent or undisputed evidencesa国际传媒�.

Fifth: sa国际传媒淲hether his or her evidence seems unreasonable, improbable or unlikely, bearing in mind the probabilities affecting the casesa国际传媒�.

And finally: sa国际传媒淭he witnesssa国际传媒檚 demeanour, meaning the way he or she presents while testifyingsa国际传媒�.

Madam Justice Fleming specifically noted the danger of relying wholly on that final factor: sa国际传媒淩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 witnesssa国际传媒檚 poor presentation as deceptive.sa国际传媒�

In another recent decision, sa国际传媒�, this one decided by Madam Justice Devlin, a couple additional factors were noted.

One: sa国际传媒淲hether the witness changes their testimony in direct and cross-examinationsa国际传媒�. And another: sa国际传媒淲hether a witness has a motive to liesa国际传媒�.

You might reasonably be coming to the conclusion that judges are cynical! To the contrary, Madam Justice Devlin noted an important starting point: sa国际传媒淭he starting point in a credibility assessment is to presume truthfulness, but this presumption may be displacedsa国际传媒�.

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 weeksa国际传媒檚 column?

Support while recovering from serious injury

Like us on Facebook and follow us on .