Cross-examination of an accused in the form 'Is she lying?' about a complainant's evidence is impermissible, as is the implicit 'Why would she lie?' form, because both may deflect the jury from proper assessment of credibility in accordance with the Crown's burden and standard of proof. Tentative exploration of a possible motive (such as compensation) in cross-examination of the complainant does not amount to a defence assertion of motive to lie so as to entitle the prosecutor to cross-examine the accused on the topic. Even strong judicial directions about the onus of proof may be insufficient to cure the prejudice where the impermissible questioning is extensive and repeated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.